Bug#949690: debian-policy: "service unit should have the same name as the package" seems too strong

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:


    Russ> Ah, hm, yes, that's a good point that I didn't notice when copying that
    Russ> Policy recommendation over from the recommendations on init scripts.

    Russ> The obvious concern here is that multiple packages could use the same
    Russ> service name, and making the service name match the package name reduces
    Russ> that risk considerably.  But I think I agree that staying consistent with
    Russ> upstream is more important than adopting that policy in a strong sense.

    Russ> Do you have a suggestion for alternative wording?  I think we still need
    Russ> to say something about matching the name of the init script if any, and if
    Russ> upstream doesn't provide a service unit, it seems reasonable to use the
    Russ> name of the package (but maybe that should be encouraged rather than
    Russ> recommended?).

I think should -> encouraged would go a lot of the way.
Especially with a sentence along the lines of
"Often, preserving an upstream's choice of service unit name is more
important than having a service unit match a package's name."