Bug#727708: init system coupling draft CFV
Here are the options which have been proposed so far, with the
proposed amendments incorporated as applicable.
You can find the history (with messageids) in the tc git repo.
There are curently four options:
Ian mark 2 (inclues amendments from Colin and Ian)
Keith
Russ (includes one thing that loos like an amendment)
Ian mark 1 (includes Colin's amendment, but likely to be dropped)
Ian.
========================================
Ian (mark 2):
[rationale]
The default init system decision is limited to selecting a default
initsystem for jessie. We expect that Debian will continue to
support multiple init systems for the foreseeable future; we
continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.
[rubric]
Therefore, for jessie and later releases, we exercise our power to
set technical policy (Constitution 6.1.1):
[loose coupling]
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).
Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches
to enable improved interoperation with various init systems.
[GR rider]
If the project passes (before the release of jessie) by a General
Resolution, a "position statement about issues of the day", on the
subject of init systems, the views expressed in that position
statement entirely replace the substance of this TC resolution; the
TC hereby adopts any such position statement as its own decision.
Such a position statement could, for example, use these words:
The Project requests (as a position statement under s4.1.5 of the
Constitution) that the TC reconsider, and requests that the TC
would instead decide as follows:
========================================
Russ:
The following is technical advice offered to the project by the
Technical Committee under section 6.1.5 of the constitution. It does
not constitute an override of maintainer decisions past or future:
Packages should normally support the default Linux init system. There
are some exceptional cases where lack of support for the default init
system may be appropriate, such as alternative init system
implementations, special-use packages such as managers for non-default
init systems, and cooperating groups of packages intended for use with
non-default init systems. However, package maintainers should be
aware that a requirement for a non-default init system will mean the
package will be unusable for most Debian users and should normally be
avoided.
Package maintainers are strongly encouraged to merge any contributions
for support of any init system, and to add
that support themselves if they're willing and capable of doing so.
In particular, package maintainers should put a high priority on
merging changes to support any init system which is the default on one
of Debian's non-Linux ports.
For the jessie release, all packages that currently support being run
under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
technically feasible way to do so. Reasonable changes to preserve or
improve sysvinit support should be accepted through the jessie
release. There may be some loss of functionality under sysvinit if
that loss is considered acceptable by the package maintainer and the
package is still basically functional. All packages should support
smooth upgrades from wheezy to jessie, including upgrades done on a
system booted with sysvinit.
The Technical Committee offers no advice at this time on requirements
or package dependencies on specific init systems after the jessie
release. There are too many variables at this point to know what the
correct course of action will be.
========================================
Keith:
The TC chooses to not pass a resolution on this issue at the current time.
========================================
Ian (mark 1; I have said I intend to drop this):
[rationale]
The default init system decision is limited to selecting a default
initsystem for jessie. We expect that Debian will continue to
support multiple init systems for the foreseeable future; we
continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.
[rubric]
Therefore, for jessie and later releases, we exercise our power to
set technical policy (Constitution 6.1.1):
[loose coupling]
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.
[GR rider]
If the project passes (before the release of jessie) by a General
Resolution, a "position statement about issues of the day", on the
subject of init systems, the views expressed in that position
statement entirely replace the substance of this TC resolution; the
TC hereby adopts any such position statement as its own decision.
Such a position statement could, for example, use these words:
The Project requests (as a position statement under s4.1.5 of the
Constitution) that the TC reconsider, and requests that the TC
would instead decide as follows:
========================================
Reply to: