Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
> I would like to see the above clause modified like this:
> 
> "There may be some loss of functionality under sysvinit if the package
> is still basically functional."

The question of tolerable degradation is IMO dealt with much better in
my proposed text.  This aspect was discussed in the TC discussion,
which is how the wording there came to be.

Ian.