Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
> > I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
> > uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed
> > by his proposal.
In practice such packages are not going to be a big problem because
writing init scripts for them would be straightforward, and then the
dependency could be relaxed.
> I too find it wrong to interpret Ian's text as a war between systemd and
> sysvinit - that's anything but "basically fine"!
It's only a war between systemd and sysvinit insofar as some of
systemd's proponents are trying to abolish everything except systemd,
which encompasses abolishing sysvinit.