Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
On 20 October 2014 21:14, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:
> Luca Falavigna wrote:
>> The Technical Committee
>> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
>> other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
>
> The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided:
> For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
> the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes
> merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing
> support without a compelling reason.
> http://bugs.debian.org/746715
That is actually a slightly different issue. In bug #746715
"supporting an init system" meant providing an init script to launch
your service with that init system (or changing some return codes in
the existing init script). It is assumed, that with a proper init
script any service would work with any init system. In the context of
this GR "supporting an init system" means being able to start the
service at all if this init system is running as PID 1. This is a
completely new problem created upstream. The fact that upstream
created the problem also provides a "compelling reason" not to support
any other init systems.
And that is "coupling" - an actual, real dependency on an init system
not just being installed, but also running as PID 1.
Even if TC decision were expressed as binding, it would not
ban/prevent such coupling. Ians proposal, however, would explicitly
make such coupling a bug and would directly determine severity of that
bug to "grave" if the package is completely unusable for users of
alternative init systems.
--
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovs mailto:aigarius@debian.org
#--------------------------------------------------------------#
| .''`. Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org) |
| : :' : Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv) |
| `. `' Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting |
| `- (http://www.aiteki.com) |
#--------------------------------------------------------------#
Reply to: