Am 05.06.2016 um 17:13 schrieb Ian Jackson:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Dropping upstart jobs (or not)"):
>> I'd happily maintain upstart configuration in my packages forever if
>> people were actually maintaining it or developing it, but since that's not
>> happening, it's very hard to see how maintaining configuration for a dead
>> init system in Debian is helping diversity. [...]
>
> If a Debian derivative wanted to keep using upstart, I would like us
> to support them in that. But I'm not aware of any such a derivative.
>
> And if they did exist, they'd probably have to take over upstream
> maintanence for upstart itself, and of course its packaging
> maintenance. At that point they could probably find someone to
> sponsor their package into Debian itself (even if it was going to be
> only in sid for some reason).
>
> But certainly I agree that we should be slow to remove the upstart
> files from packages. It's not doing any harm, and it will help
> backporters etc. I think Tollef's proposal is reasonable.
Thanks for all the (constructive) feedback.
I guess everyone agreed to keep the upstart jobs for stretch and I have
no problem doing so as well for my own package.
My understanding is that so far no one objects if they are removed for
buster and if they are, they should be cleaned up as well on upgrades.
I also think Tollef's proposal to add this to the stretch release notes
is a good idea.
I'll wait for a few more days to see if there is other/contrary feedback
as well. If not I'll file a bug report against the release-notes package
to include such a note.
Regards,
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature