Re: opentmpfiles & opensysusers, and its use in the Debian policy
On 1/3/20 2:23 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Proposal B is about letting you innovate (for example doing your own
> implementation of tmpfiles that you opt into on a per-package basis) and
> doing the integration work for alternatives like elogind where you
> cannot use the systemd interface.
>
> --Sam
Sam,
I think you and many others should be extremely careful when talking
about proposal B just as if it was a clear winner of the poll. If you
are then discarding the opinion of everyone else who didn't want it as
the winning option, and not consider the GR result as a whole, then you
are clearly dismissing the opinion of a large amount of DDs (even though
they were not the majority).
What I'm trying to do here, is to enable a middle ground where we have a
common interface everywhere, with the possibility to implement things
differently. Just saying "systemd systemd systemd" many times, imposing
it as the only reference and winner, where it should be enabled
everywhere, and for absolutely all of its interfaces, will lead to
nowhere. And that's *not* what the proposal B was about.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: