On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 15:39:47 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun 27 Dec 2020 at 07:26PM +02, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > My reasoning is that init scripts are the end goal, and that elogind is > > just a symptom of that end goal, and that therefore talking about > > elogind in isolation serves no purpose. > The GR specifically mentions elogind and not init scripts. "Technologies /such as/ elogind …" (emph. mine) shows to me that this is meant as an example, as a "demonstration", and not as an exhaustive list [0]. So neither is elogind "special" nor is it the only relevant piece of software to consider supporting. [1] What surprises me in this discussion: My very broad summary of the GR result was "systemd is the top priority, other init systems are supported on a best-effort basis", and now I'm reading statements which sound to me like "looking into new/future/niche init systems is ok-ish but we never meant sysvinit when we said 'alternate init systems'", and that's either a misunderstanding of some mails on my side or an interpretation I find implausible to draw from the text of the winning GR option. Cheers, gregor [0] in German (and probably Roman) legal terms, "demonstrativ" vs. "taxativ", cf. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerationsprinzip and https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=40524&lp=ende&lang=en [1] I also think that this is an example of why naming one specific software in a normative text is not such a good idea. -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Carole King: Smackwater Jack
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature