Ian Jackson wrote:
Hubert Chathi writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:09:18 -0700, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> said: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.I would hope that this would not be allowed by Ian's proposal until uselessd is also in Debian. In particular, "work with one alternative init system", I think, *should* imply that the alternative init system is in Debian.Yes; I didn't spell that out because I thought it would be obvious. By `in Debian' in this context we probably mean `in testing and not RC buggy'.
Frankly, while I'm not eligible to vote, isn't the real message that most of us who object to systemd would like to see classic sysvinit continue to be supported? Why be so damned oblique about things?
Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra