[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 19 October 2014 18:27, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> wrote:
> On 19/10/14 at 14:28 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > So I think that we are down to two solutions that really preserve the 'freedom'
>> > to choose an init system:
>> I mostly agree with your technical analysis.
>> > 2) packages MUST work with a specific interface, which is basic enough to
>> > enable all alternative init systems to support it. The most natural such
>> > interface is currently sysvinit: if a package works with sysvinit as PID 1, it
>> > currently also works with upstart, openrc, etc.
>> 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.
> I don't follow you here.
> Your main goal is to preserve the ability to switch between init
> systems.
> Requiring support for sysvinit sounds exactly like what you really want,
> since users could then switch to any sysvinit-compatible init system.
> Why not say so explicitely?

I am inclined to agree with Lucas here - requirement of 'at least one'
or 'some alternative' are quite imprecise, especially if multiple
forks of one init system are present in the archive. The requirement
to work with some minimal common API, such as the one provided by
sysvinit, would be more precise and will cause less discussions later
on. If the bug severity scaling is carried over from Ians original
proposal [1], then that would be the best option (to vote on) so far.

[1] Midified to: functionality degradation with sysvinit is a bug and
the severity of that bug must be identical to what the severity would
have been if such functionality degradation affected all users.

Best regards,
    Aigars Mahinovs        mailto:aigarius@debian.org
 | .''`.    Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)            |
 | : :' :   Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv)     |
 | `. `'    Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting   |
 |   `-                                 (http://www.aiteki.com) |

Reply to: