[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

Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19 16:13:18)
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> [snip]
>> 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 
> worries?

There are many ways to twist words, yes.

 - 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: