Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.
Colin Watson <email@example.com> writes:
> Also, after rereading your proposal, I notice you have a post-jessie
> sunset clause where we would have to renew our advice if we wanted it to
> continue to be effective (is this very meaningful in an informative
This was just an error on my part. That was only supposed to apply to the
advice about sysvinit support, not to the entirety of the advice. I think
the rest of it is generally applicable and doesn't need a sunset clause.
> While I agree with your too-many-variables sentence, I prefer this
> indefinite until-we-decide-otherwise approach, because engineering
> timescales are wildly variable even in the corporate world never mind in
> a volunteer project. We definitely want our advice/policy/whatever to
> be effective up to the release of jessie for practical upgrade reasons,
> but I would prefer that changes after that be in response to definite
> changes in the init system landscape, rather than simply the passage of
> time and Debian releases.
I'm very reluctant to support a statement that *requires* that we have
this debate in the TC again. I would prefer to let the project try to
work this out and only get involved again if we actually have to.
I don't want to get caught in the trap where we're assuming, even
implicitly, that the project will do something stupid unless the TC is
constantly keeping our hands on the wheel. Maintainers really don't need
us to tell them how to do their work for the vast majority of issues and
decisions, and I fully expect that will apply to init systems as well once
we get through this rocky and controversial part.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>