Hello David, On Tue 23 Jul 2019 at 12:49PM -04, David Steele wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:15 AM Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote: >> >> I think that the wording for this change should reflect the above >> (unless I've misunderstood David), such that the new wording cannot be >> misinterpreted to mean that the sysvinit requirement does not apply to >> any package using any systemd component. > > That would resolve my issue, though I am not sold on the value of the > additional specificity. I'll say no more than this - If I am operating in good > faith, the additional language is not necessary. If I am not, it won't stop > me. Let me expand a bit. The Policy Editors have decided that dropping the requirement to ship init scripts is not something that can be decided by means of the Policy Changes Process, at least for the time being. In proposing and reviewing wording to resolve this bug, then, we should be careful not to weaken the requirement to ship init scripts. Otherwise, in resolving this bug we would be changing the requirements to ship init scripts by means of the Policy Changes Process. I'm suggesting this be kept in mind. It need not result in a wordier change, and I certainly agree with you that we should assume good faith on the part of package maintainers. Sorry for not writing this earlier in the thread and thank you again for filing this bug. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature