Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
On 2014-02-28, Matthew Vernon <email@example.com> wrote:
> 2. Loose coupling of init systems
> In general, software may not require a specific init system to be
> pid 1. The exceptions to this are as follows:
I'm not fully sure about the implications if we vote this in.
So, I'm trying to come up with a example and hoping that someone can
Begin example. Basic assumptions are that we vote 'yes'.
Assuming that I have a package that requires handling of XDG_RUNTIME_DIR
as per the specification. Without this, my package is going to suffer
from serious dataloss or alternatively not work at all.
In Debian at this point in time, we have logind that implements handling
of XDG_RUNTIME_DIR as per the specification. Logind requires systemd.
so. the possibilities are.
a) I can't upload such a package to Debian without I ensure that there
is multiple working and available implementations of XDG_RUNTIME_DIR
b) I can upload such a package and the work is put on the logind
maintainers to ensure logind works without systemd.
c) I can upload such a package, and I can write Depends: logind in the
package, and the work is put on whoever wants an alternative to ensure
d) I can upload such a package, and I can write Depends: xdgruntimedir
in the package, and the work is put on whoever wants an alternative
to ensure it