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

Bug#835507: Please clarify that sysvinit support decision is not going to expire

]] Bart Schouten 

> > I agree on this too.  To the extent it should be considered
> > time-limited, it should be «until N releases after sysvinit is
> > removed» or somesuch, if that happens.
> In legal terms, in law, it would be considered that the burden of
> proof lies with those who want to remove it.

As Sam writes, this isn't law and so this isn't terribly relevant.  We
routinely remove support for no-longer-supported infrastructure.

For a very similar situation, there was no disagreement about removing
upstart jobs once stretch is out.  (IIRC on the timing.)  Similarly, if
sysvinit is removed and we don't have other bits of the distribution
needing sysvinit scripts, we should stop shipping them.  This isn't true
today, so we're not going to remove sysvinit scripts.

> The burden of proof would be laid with the ones who want to remove it.

There's a balance that needs to be struck here: the needs of those who
need those scripts against the cost of maintaining them.

> I think any kind of time-limited removal that you pronounce in
> advance, is irrational.

I did not do this, though.

> "My grandmother used that" is not a good reason.

Good thing nobody used that as an argument, then.

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: