Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
Faidon Liambotis <paravoid@debian.org> writes:
> I haven't gotten any such bug reports, so this is still theoretical, but
> I think I'd simply reject anything more complicated than simply adding a
> debian/foo.upstart file to the tree, including adding (and maintaining)
> hacks or modifying existing SysV init scripts. I certainly won't work on
> adding an upstart job to my packages myself.
The hacks we're talking about here are pretty minimal: just three lines in
the init script that we're mentioning. I think it's pretty
straightforward and think that maintainers should just add that support.
I can see your point that the future of upstart is possibly unclear, but
my feeling is that if anyone filed a bug against a package requesting
upstart support, that's sufficient indication of interest to merge upstart
support patches, including this sort of minor modification of the init
script.
> If the committee feels differently about this, I think it'd be useful to
> express this in a more clarified manner and possibly incorporate this
> into policy.
Wouldn't it be better to just do this directly via Policy? I don't think
that the TC is needed or adds value right now.
Doing this via Policy had been my intention, which has been interrupted by
my day job becoming absolutely awful over the past nine months or so (four
reorgs in eight months, most of them entirely unjustified). I still think
that's the best route forward, and am sorry that I've not been able to
drive that work. I had intended to be well into it by now.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: