Bug#941198: initscripts: packages should ship systemd units
- To: 941198@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#941198: initscripts: packages should ship systemd units
- From: Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 12:21:43 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87mudf3kqg.fsf@marvin.43-1.org>
- Reply-to: Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org>, 941198@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20191001224225.110812D75F@disroot.org> (Dmitry Bogatov's message of "Tue, 01 Oct 2019 22:43:33 +0000")
- References: <156948475045.9391.15664362173898928746.reportbug@deep-thought.43-1.org> <156948475045.9391.15664362173898928746.reportbug@deep-thought.43-1.org> <87lfuahgae.fsf@iris.silentflame.com> <156948475045.9391.15664362173898928746.reportbug@deep-thought.43-1.org> <87h84yqjwf.fsf@43-1.org> <156948475045.9391.15664362173898928746.reportbug@deep-thought.43-1.org> <87mueofo74.fsf@iris.silentflame.com> <156948475045.9391.15664362173898928746.reportbug@deep-thought.43-1.org> <87impbkj7n.fsf@hope.eyrie.org> <156948475045.9391.15664362173898928746.reportbug@deep-thought.43-1.org> <20191001224225.110812D75F@disroot.org> <156948475045.9391.15664362173898928746.reportbug@deep-thought.43-1.org>
Dmitry Bogatov writes:
> [2019-09-28 18:02] Russ Allbery
>> I agree. This seems entirely reasonable to me. Both the behavior and the
>> inherent documentation are better with unit files, and systemd is the
>> default init system so that's an advantage for a lot of our users.
>>
>> That said, if anyone does object to this, please do speak up and explain
>> why this would be a problem.
How to proceed with this? Do you still require any wording changes? Or
do you want to wait for the announced GR?
> Does it mean that lack of systemd unit file is RC-critical bug? Or I
> will be able to waive it with "you are welcome to contribute a patch"
> response?
Or should we consider making shipping a sysvinit script, but no systemd
unit a RC bug? Dmitry seems to be concerned that people might just
waive it away; I don't think this needs to be a RC bug, but it might
slow adoption.
Ansgar
Reply to: