Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
On 17/10/14 at 16:12 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lucas Nussbaum:
> > For example, Ian's "software may not require a specific init system to be pid
> > 1" could be abused by introducing a systemd-clone package in the archive
>
> Please try to ignore maleficial intent and similar failure modes.
>
> If we'd go that way, not only would we need to define (and capitalize)
> every second word, but the GR proposals would be a lot longer – and
> correspondingly harder to understand / apply correctly.
Oh, yes, sure. I'm just pointing out that the current proposals are
quite long and complex (and yes, I'm guilty for that as well), and that
it might be quite hard to understand what they mean in practice.
When proposals will have stabilized, it could be useful to write an
unofficial FAQ to explain what each option really means in practice.
Lucas
Reply to: