[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#591791: extend init.d policy to permit upstart jobs and describe their use

On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 02:19:12AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Sorry this has taken so long; I spun my wheels on it
> > for some time because I couldn't quite accept that there were so few
> > additional requirements that needed to be specified here!
> Thanks for your work. :)
> [...]
> > +          tasks at boot time.  However, any package integrating with other
> > +          init systems must also be backwards-compatible with
> > +          <package>sysvinit</package> 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.  An
> > +          exception to this rule is scripts or jobs provided by the init
> > +          implementation itself; such jobs may be required for an
> > +          implementation-specific equivalent of the <file>/etc/rcS.d/</file>
> > +          scripts and may not have a one-to-one correspondence with the init
> > +          scripts.
> Maybe policy could allow (but discourage) packages that only support
> some non-Sys-V init system as long as they include a dependency
> indicating so?

This would be a terrible idea. We would end up with packages that will not
be work together because they depend on different init systems.

> One of the advantages of upstart and its kin is the simpler
> configuration, after all, so I can imagine some maintainers wanting to
> take advantage of that and not having time to debug a standard init
> script.  The example that led me to mention this is Bug#422139; it is
> not quite the same issue but is related.

The whole point of Debian policy is to promote interoperability, not to allow
maintainer to make quick-and dirty packages.

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: