Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.
* Colin Watson (firstname.lastname@example.org) [140213 19:09]:
> 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
I'm not sure if this already covers the case of glue-packages, or if
we need to cover them (i.e. for a package foo, it's ok, if foo depends
on foo-sysv | foo-systemd | foo-upstart | foo-openrc, and each of
those four depends on a specific init system).
> provided that these are not themselves required by other software
> whose main purpose is not the operation of a specific init system.
I think we agree that "required" doesn't involve cases where such a
package is just one of a different set of packages which fulfils that
requirement (via virtual packages or alternatives).
> Russ, can you give an example of a package that currently supports
> sysvinit where you would be happy that it might stop supporting it for
> jessie due to a lack of technical feasibility?
If this is advice, I think we can drop that part (for a decision that
might be different, and an indication that it might be possible that
there are exceptions might be appropriate).