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

[Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org>]

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
> 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. 

I think this deserves a better answer.

Do you consider uselessd to be the same init system as systemd? To me
this looks like a legitimate fork.

Or are you saying that "at least one" is really meant to mean "at least
one not-systemd derived"?


Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«