Re: Proposal for next steps for systemd-related policy
Hi,
I broadly agree with what you said.
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> 2. Do nothing further before January 6th. It's still the holidays, and
> subsequent steps are going to require some discussion, and I think it's
> worth taking a breath.
This, particularly.
> My thought process here is that while the GR permits packages to start
> using systemd facilities directly, doing that without somehow declaring
> that requirement in package metadata seems likely to cause bugs and
> upgrade issues, so we should try to provide some better facilities. I
> think there's an obvious gap here where we need a mechanism to declare
> a dependency on a system facility (as distinct from a package that may
> be installed but not running) such as tmpfiles.d, sysusers.d, the
> ability to rely on DynamicUser without creating a user for that purpose
> in maintainer scripts, systemd D-Bus facilities, socket activation, or
> so forth.
This is a sound point; systemd provides an increasing range of
facilities, and it'd be good to keep track of which of them are being
used where and how.
> As time goes on, we'll get a better feel for how much work folks will
> be doing going forward on supporting other init systems, and thus on
> how quickly we should move versus giving them time to determine how
> they want to support equivalent functionality.
I suspect such effort is going to be at a low ebb in the immediate
aftermath of this GR, so this will need some care.
Regards,
Matthew
--
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org
Reply to: