Bug#941198: initscripts: packages should ship systemd units

[Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org>]

Russ Allbery writes:
> Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
>> How to proceed with this?  Do you still require any wording changes?
>
> I think we can proceed to add a Policy "should" for including a systemd
> unit file unless someone raises objections pretty soon here.  So far, I
> haven't seen any objections to the basic idea.

Okay.  Anything further I should do except wait?

>> 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.
>
> Making it an RC bug seems much too aggressive to start with.  We can look
> at whether that makes sense later, but right now it would make far too
> many packages instantly buggy.

I agree.  I think it should likely stay "should" in the future anyway
(as it is currently for sysvinit too).

> We're doing some of that already even by introducing a "should," and
> there's some argument to be made for starting with a Lintian warning
> instead, but I'm not inclined to be that conservative here, mostly because
> we're long-overdue for saying something, and I think the should is fairly
> mild in this case.

I think there is already a lintian warning:

  https://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-systemd-service-for-init.d-script.html

Ansgar