Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
> The wording in my resolution comes from the TC discussion and
> specifies `at least one' or `some alternative'. To represent that as
> `all' is IMO misleading.
>
> One important difference between `all' and `at least one' is this:
> suppose there is some init system that does not support the common
> interface you suppose in your point (2). Saying `all' suggests that
> it is somehow the fault of the packages which deal with the common
> interface. This point was raised in the TC discussion.
>
> Saying `all' gives the impression that every package must do work for
> each init system. That is why my proposal's wording simply says that
> packages are forbidden from requiring `a specific' init system.
OK, so packaging uselessd (thus providing another init system that
provides -- most of -- the systemd interfaces) would solve all your
worries?
[snip]
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
Reply to: