Re: Policy consensus on transition when removing initscripts.
>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> writes:
>> It also seems a bit strange to require more from the maintainer
>> when they are dropping an init script than we would if a
>> maintainer started depending on a feature like socket activation
>> such that their packkage simply would not work without systemd.
Simon> This would be a case where the init script and the systemd
Simon> unit deviate in functionality. I don't see a problem with
Simon> that, and my expectation is generally that the people running
Simon> sysvinit and the people running systemd have different
Simon> expectations here anyway.
It would be entirely permitted under GR 2019-002 for me to build a
version of krb5-kdc that was compiled to depend on socket activation and
would not work without systemd.
I would not be required to provide any transition when doing that.
(To be clear, I have no such plans, and in the case of krb5kdc don't
currently think it would be a good idea).
Reply to: