[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 17/10/14 at 13:59 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 17/10/14 at 11:38 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > >    For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run
> > > >    under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no
> > > >    technically feasible way to do so.
> > > 
> > > I believe "currently" needs to be clarified - are you talking about the
> > > current state of jessie, of wheezy, or something else?
> > 
> > I tried to keep changes from the original text (as voted on by the TC)
> > to the bare minimum.
> > But, since the intend here is to allow swift upgrades between stable
> > releases, it should read:
> > 
> >   For the jessie release, all software available in Debian 'wheezy' that
> >   supports being run under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit
> >   unless there is no technically feasible way to do so.
> > 
> 
> Hi Lucas,
> 
> For clarity, are you formally amending your own text here?

Yes.

I am expecting other fine-tunings during the next hours/days, so I
initially wanted to gather those changes in a single amended version.
But now that you asked the question, yes, please amend the proposal with
the above change.

Thanks,

Lucas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: