Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> There is also this decision of the CTTE:
> The TC chooses to not pass a resolution at the current time
> about whether software may require specific init systems.
> Which doesn't have this GR rider text in it, and is on the same
> subject as this GR.
That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling
28th Feb "we choose not to pass a resolution at the current time
[ie on the 28th of February] about coupling"
These are not contradictory. In particular, the 28th of February
resolution should not be read as vacating the 11th of February
resolution's GR rider, which is what you are suggesting.