Hey! Lintian got a new tag to enforce Policy 9.11: Packages may integrate with these replacement init systems by providing implementation-specific configuration information about how and when to start a service or in what order to run certain tasks at boot time. However, any package integrating with other init systems must also be backwards-compatible with sysvinit by providing a SysV- style init script with the same name as and equivalent functionality to any init-specific job, as this is the only start-up configuration method guaranteed to be supported by all init implementations. Lintian tag: <https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script.html> This tag has false positives, see: <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=931889> Original bug introducing this tag is: <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=926471> The policy update is being discussed here: <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911165> As usual with a policy change, it will take years. Some people will push back and the result is that a few people can impose to everyone else the additional work to maintain SysV init script. Previously, we had a sort of agreement (through the TC decision) that such scripts should be maintained by people caring about them and we should only act on bug reports with proper patches to have them. Thanks to this new Lintian tag, the current situation is that packages won't pass NEW without a SysV init script (unless a FTP-masters ignore this specific tag despite its severity). This Lintian tag was introduced by the maintainer of runit in a clear attempt to push more work towards people not shipping SysV init script. Could it be just reverted on the ground of the TC statement and the fact that systemd is not an alternative init? -- Zounds! I was never so bethumped with words since I first called my brother's father dad. -- William Shakespeare, "Kind John"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature