Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-19 20:21:59)
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> David Weinehall writes ("Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory"):
>>> OK, so packaging uselessd (thus providing another init system that
>>> provides -- most of -- the systemd interfaces) would solve all your
>>> worries?
>>
>> This resolution will be interpreted by humans, specifically
>> individual maintainers, the TC, and the release team - not by robots.
>
> Presumably some maintainers would consider uselessd an alternate init
> system - and others will not. In that case the GR seems have achieved
> effectively nothing.
If there was a secret agenda e.g. to annoy systemd then you are right
that such trick that you now thought up would mean that this GR was a
waste of time.
If, however, we are genuinely vote about Debian not being monolithic
about init systems, then yet another init system is just great.
...or not so great if really not another init system but practically the
same - but let's deal with that if it ever becomes relevant.
Whether we wants to ensure "more than one" is relevant to decide on now.
- 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