[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.

Andreas Barth writes ("Bug#727708: init system coupling etc."):
> Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) [140219 19:24]:
> > How does this sound to you?
> > 
> >     Packages should normally support the default init system on all
> >     architectures for which they are built.  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.
> Better but I think we should also point out that supporting different
> architectures is a good thing.
> So the first sentence rather as
> | Packages should support as many architectures as reasonably possible,
> | and they should normally ...
> Also I'd like to amend the last sentence with ", and could constitute
> an serious bug of the package." (which is a correct observation
> according to the current RC policy)

Russ has already amended his text to say "Software should ...".  So
when transposing your amendment onto Russ's new text, I have to decide
between using your new text verbatim (effectively reverting that
change), or treating your proposal as a request to change only the
parts you are actually aiming at.

I'm going to do the latter because it appears to best reflect your
intent.  This results in

    Software should support as many architectures as reasonably possible,
    and it should normally support the default [...]

(changing "they" to "it" to agree gramatically with "software" rather
than "packages").

> To avoid any doubt, this is a formal proposal for an amendment to
> Russ's text, i.e. I would like to see it on the ballot.

Thanks for being clear.


Reply to: