Bug#835520: [PATCH v2 11/11] Drop entire section 9.4 Console messages from init.d scripts

[Andreas Henriksson <andreas@fatal.se>]

Hello Henrique de Moraes Holschuh,

Thanks for looking into this!

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:56:36AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016, at 10:57, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > The entire section is specific to sysvinit and already solved
> > by LSB in that case. There's no point in reinventing LSB.
> 
> Then, instead of deleting it entirely, wouldn't it be better to replace
> it with text directing maintainers to follow the relevant sections of
> the LSB?

Primarily that would be something I'd consider a "further improvement" that
could be added on top of the changes I've proposed.
This is (hopefully) not the last change to policy after all.

Fwiw, I'm hoping as much discussion as possible (including LSB) can happen
separately rather than extending this (and and every other policy change
proposal) into eternity (and thus never getting anywhere).

Secondly, from what I hear from LSB maintainer is that it's targeted for
(future) removal because it's considered obsolete these days. Thus I'm
not sure how much value it would be to struggle to get LSB documented
into policy and when we've finally reached that goal in a decade or so
LSB has already stopped existing as a package in Debian....
(I might be overly pessimistic about the speed of policy changes but I'm
personally focused on trying to get rid of obsolete parts rather than
adding right now. Help welcome on the adding part or anywhere.)

I'm thus leaving it to someone else to consider (and coordinate with LSB
maintainers opinions on the topic) if LSB should be documented in
policy. The existing text though is not useful so should be removed IMHO.

As already mentioned, this is layed out as a patch series for policy
editors to pick and choose as they see fit. Feel free to leave patch 11
out (or use someone elses patch if one has been proposed as an
alternative).

Your feedback (as statements rather than questions) about each patch
in the series would be appreciated! Please second the ones you think
are good as they are. Please outright object to the ones you don't like
(and preferrably propose an alternative patch).

Regards,
Andreas Henriksson