[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Tentative summary of the amendments

On 24 October 2014 11:21, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> Hi Uoti,
> thanks for your summmary of the situation.
> On Donnerstag, 23. Oktober 2014, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>> In another mail, Ian said that his interpretation is that the init
>> system would not only have to be packaged in Debian, but in testing and
>> not RC buggy.
> yeah, I found this interpration also "interesting"... (eg. that there is room
> for interpretaion... I thought "in Debian" ment sid and could be buggy. Now I
> learn that buggy packages in sid seem to not always be part of Debian... at
> least not in the context of this amendment.) - interesting and a bit scary.

This is the same requirement as with regular dependencies. If you want
into next release, then all your dependencies must be there. If you
want to be supporting two init systems in next release, then it only
can count if the two init systems that you support are also in the

It is however very discouraging that the preferred method of
"supporting alternative init systems" seems to be to get the closest
possible clone of their preferred init system and try to only support
that as an alternative. Is it really that hard to imagine pushing
upstream to make their software work correctly when systemd is not
running? Even when that upstream is part of systemd.

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: