[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 Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

> The wording in my resolution comes from the TC discussion and
> specifies `at least one' or `some alternative'.  To represent that as
> `all' is IMO misleading.
> One important difference between `all' and `at least one' is this:
> suppose there is some init system that does not support the common
> interface you suppose in your point (2).  Saying `all' suggests that
> it is somehow the fault of the packages which deal with the common
> interface.  This point was raised in the TC discussion.
> Saying `all' gives the impression that every package must do work for
> each init system.  That is why my proposal's wording simply says that
> packages are forbidden from requiring `a specific' init system.

OK, so packaging uselessd (thus providing another init system that
provides -- most of -- the systemd interfaces) would solve all your


Regards: David Weinehall
 /) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window           (\
//  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Beautiful hoar-frost       (/

Reply to: