Quoting David Weinehall (2014-10-19 16:13:18) > 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? There are many ways to twist words, yes. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature