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

Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.



* Ian Jackson (ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140221 13:37]:
> 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

Yes, that was the intention (basically it was a patch). Thanks.


Andi


Reply to: