Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Sune Vuorela <email@example.com> writes:
> On 2014-02-28, Matthew Vernon <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> enlighten me.
I don't think this is a good idea. You will be voting on the GR
as-written, not on someones interpretation of it. So if someone now
explains how the GR would (in his or her opinion) affect your example,
and you base your vote on that, there is no guarantee at all that your
vote will have the intended consequences.
In other words, if I were not clear about the implications of a GR, I'd
ask for them to be made explicit in the GR text itself, rather than base
my vote on someone else's interpretation.
Encrypted emails preferred.
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«