Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:09:18 -0700, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> said:
> Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes:
>> Q2: support for alternative init systems as PID 1
>> ================================================= A2.1: packages MUST
>> work with one alternative init system (in [iwj]) (if you are confused
>> with “one” here, it’s basically fine to read it as “sysvinit”
>> instead. See [10]this subthread for a discussion about this)
> I believe Ian's intended reading is that a package that depends on
> uselessd | systemd (but does not work with sysvinit) would be allowed
> by his proposal.
I would hope that this would not be allowed by Ian's proposal until
uselessd is also in Debian. In particular, "work with one alternative
init system", I think, *should* imply that the alternative init system
is in Debian.
Ian, as I understand your previous message, you were only addressing the
issue of a non-sysvinit alternative init system, and not a not-in-Debian
alternative init system, so can you clarify your intent regarding how
your proposal would treat init systems that are not in Debian?
--
Hubert Chathi <uhoreg@debian.org> -- Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Reply to: