Re: Debian policy on alternate init systems
On 9/27/14, Marty <martyb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Debian Policy Manual currently supports alternate init systems, and
> mentions upstart as an example. sysvinit scripts will continue to be
> required per policy. I got the opposite impression from the TC debate,
> where part of the justification (IIRC) for systemd was avoiding sysvinit
> maintenance. Since the policy remains, that argument did not prevail,
> even if their choice did, if I'm reading this correctly.
>
> The relevant policies are 1.1: "Packages that do not conform to the
> guidelines denoted by must (or required) will generally not be
> considered acceptable for the Debian distribution." and 9.11: "any
> package integrating with other init systems must also be
> backwards-compatible with sysvinit by providing a SysV-style init script
* pin drop *
Am once again not having the best of cognitive days.... and still that
right there seems.... pretty clear. In fact, very few words there to
get in the way of cognitive interpretation.
How'd you ever find that in among every single other thing else that's
out there to study regarding anything Debian...?
If that first *two sentence* paragraph wasn't there, it might be
possible to rhetorically twist that second paragraph a little to not
include other "init implementations".. But that introduction *is*
there and makes no bones about it:
"A number of other init systems are available now in Debian that can
be used in place of sysvinit. Alternative init implementations must
support running SysV init scripts as described at System run levels
and init.d scripts, Section 9.3 for compatibility."
This is the rel link straight to Marty's highlighted policy section:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-alternateinit
That section's in the bottom page fold so CTRL+END will get you there,
too, if relative links don't work for any reason..
Soooo.... Genuine question, not trying to make any point in case it
comes across that way. I truly do not know. Does that occur now,
meaning is that "must support" being fulfilled?
My grasp so far has been that people have not been able to use what
they've been relying on in the past. As a disclaimer, the easy path to
continued across board interoperability may have been successfully
addressed in a Debian-User email that is simply waiting its turn to be
read.. If that is the case, my sincere apologies in advance for undue
noise..
Thank you, Marty....
Cindy
--
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA
* runs with duct tape *
Reply to: