Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
d> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: Tentative summary of the amendments"):
>> Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2014-10-22 05:09:18)
>> > 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.
>
> Yes.
>
> In practice such packages are not going to be a big problem because
> writing init scripts for them would be straightforward, and then the
> dependency could be relaxed.
I think this illustrates that the consequences of your proposal are
rather unclear.
* What if no-one does the work, even if it's straightforward? Is the
package still allowed in Debian?
* What if the work isn't as straightforward as you expect?
* What if uselessd in the future adds additional features from systemd?
Does this mean that at some point there might be "too many" features,
so that depending on systemd|uselessd is considered just one init
system?
* What if uselessd becomes dead upstream, or no longer packaged in
Debian (e.g. because everyone uses either systemd or sysvinit)? Will
this make all packages depending on it or systemd insta-buggy?
I understand that the main idea behind the GR is to send a clear message
to upstreams that Debian cares about the user being able to choose
different init systems. But I think framing this in the context of a
technical requirement on Debian packages is not a good idea.
Have you considered a proposal of the form "The Debian project considers
it very important to be able to run the system with multiple init
systems, and strongly urges upstream developers to support this"? I
think this would be much more likely to find a majority, and I don't
think it will be any less effective in convincing upstreams.
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.«
Reply to: