Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.
Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: init system coupling etc."):
> To start with, I therefore propose the following amendment to L. I
> think it is no weaker except in ways that we would agree were in fact OK
> if we found ourselves needing to rule on them specifically, and this
> addresses points that people have raised here. The first paragraph of
> the "loose coupling" section is replaced by the following:
>
> In general, software may not require a specific init system to be pid
> 1, although degraded operation is tolerable. The exceptions to this
> are as follows:
>
> * alternative init system implementations
> * special-use packages such as managers for init systems
> * cooperating groups of packages intended for use with specific init
> systems
>
> provided that these are not themselves required by other software
> whose main purpose is not the operation of a specific init system.
>
> Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches
> to enable improved interoperation with various init systems.
>
> (It took me three goes to draft this in a way I was happy with, so
> perhaps more wordsmithing is needed.)
In the spirit of my response to Noah Meyerhans:
In general, software may not require a specific init system to be
pid 1. The exceptions to this are as follows:
* alternative init system implementations
* special-use packages such as managers for init systems
* cooperating groups of packages intended for use with specific init
systems
provided that these are not themselves required by other software
whose main purpose is not the operation of a specific init system.
Degraded operation with some init systems is tolerable, so long as
the degradation is no worse than a tolerable bug. So the lack of
a particular init system does not excuse a bug nor reduce its
severity; but conversely, nor is a bug more serious simply because
it is an incompatibility of some software with some init
system(s).
Is this a clearer line to draw ?
Ian.
Reply to: