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

Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems



El Fri, 2 de May 2014 a las 3:01 PM, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> escribió:
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems"):
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog entry to > my attention: > tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=low > * Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead now. > Since various members of the Technical Committee argued that choosing a > default would not prevent Debian from supporting other init systems, I > would like to hear from those members how they think this should be > addressed. Well, one, in the abstract this seems like a bad idea. I certainly don't intend to remove upstart support in my packages, any more than I would reintroduce a bunch of PATH_MAX expressions and intentionally drop Hurd support.
The removed change is presumably what was added here: tftp-hpa (5.2-9) experimental; urgency=low * Adding upstart exit codes in initscript.

There we go! As somebody who likes Upstart, _this is an ugly hack_. It is mandated by Debian policy [0], as most of you may know, though. Perhaps the simplest solution to the immediate problem is to perform the actions suggested by Dimitri Ledkov in BTS #712763 [1]. That said, there is obviously a bigger question here for the TC to address.

[0] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-alternateinit
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=712763

Best regards,
--
Cameron Norman

Reply to: