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

Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

Quoting Ansgar Burchardt (2014-10-17 22:34:31)
> Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de> writes:
>> On 17.10.2014 16:54, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>>> If the fix is not easy then we have three options: the release team 
>>>> mark it `jessie-ignore', the GNOME maintainers fix it, or GNOME is 
>>>> removed from jessie.
>>> The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who 
>>> wants to rely on specific features of a given initsystem.
>> The implication of not making sure packages get along with each other 
>> may be that system administrators need to decide which of the 
>> mutually exclusive desktop systems they can offer their users.
> That's however not what the proposal forbids: A can depend on 
> init-A|init-B, B can depend on init-B|init-C and C can depend on 
> init-C|init-A. There's no way to install both A, B and C.

The proposal is indeed possible to misinterpret of you really want to. 
As Lucas pointed out earlier, other misinterpretations are possible too.

Suggestions for improvements, while preserving readability and intent, 
are quite welcome.

>> No, but I think we should reject packages that are mutually exclusive 
>> with unrelated packages because they require incompatible choices of 
>> packages they depend on.
> Again, this does seem to be a different issue than what the GR 
> proposes.

Different but related: Simon describes a broader pattern where init 
systems play a part but is not the only part.  This GR is limited to the 
init issue.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: