On 20/10/14 at 22:26 +0200, Arno Töll wrote: > That's - I think - a good default and affirms Debian's point of view > that the respective maintainers can judge best what's a good requirement > for their packages. Finally I encourage everyone to focus on the > connotation in Luca's amendment. It allows maintainers to tie their > software to a particular init system only as a last resort when > absolutely necessary - not by pure choice, or by laziness. I disagree with this interpretation. We have processes in place in Debian to deal with such last resort situations: - someone opens an RC bug against the package, stating why it is unsuitable for release - the release team reviews the bug, and might (or not) mark it with the jessie-ignore tag That process works well: someone (the maintainer) is in charge of doing their best to fix the bug, while someone else (the release team) is in charge of evaluating whether, in a last resort situation, it's better to use a dirty work-around (= require another init system) or just remove the package. With Luca's proposal, the maintainer is now in charge of doing a self-evaluation of whether a given bug is unfixable enough to justify being worked-around. Also, the maintainer does not even need to try to fix the problem: showing that there are no patches or other derived works to fix it is a sufficient condition to consider the bug unfixable. I think that this would be a significant step backward in the way we promote consistent technical practices in all Debian packages. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature