[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory

On 17/10/14 at 12:00 +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > […]
> >    For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
> >    under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
> >    technically feasible way to do so.  Reasonable changes to preserve
> >    or improve sysvinit support should be accepted through the jessie
> >    release.
> The first sentence seems strong to me. There's (almost) always going to
> be a technically feasible way to achieve this, given a large enough
> changeset. "Reasonable changes" is right. I suggest replacing the quoted
> section with something like
>   For the jessie release, maintainers should not remove support for
>   running under sysvinit from software which already possesses this
>   support, unless it would be unreasonably difficult to preserve in the
>   face of other changes the maintainer reasonably desires for jessie.
>   Reasonable contributions to re-add or improve sysvinit support should
>   be accepted through the jessie release.

I would agree in principle.

However, we are freezing in two weeks, and the current status is that
(AFAIK) all software that supported sysvinit in wheezy continues to
support sysvinit in jessie (thanks to systemd-shim).

So this is a strong requirement, but one that is already met in practice
in the archive, and the current status is unlikely to change by the time
we release. So I don't really see a point in lightening that


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: