Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

Thanks for helping; resolving these sort of ambiguities are really
appreciated.

>>>>> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes:

    Lucas> Hi,
    Lucas> On 07/11/19 at 13:04 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives
    >> Packages should include service units or init scripts to start
    >> daemons and services.  Packages may include support for alternate
    >> init systems besides systemd and may include alternatives for any
    >> systemd-specific interfaces they use.  Maintainers use their
    >> normal procedures for deciding which patches to include.

    Lucas> I find this paragraph a bit hard to parse.

    Lucas> "Packages should include service units or init scripts to
    Lucas> start daemons and services."

    Lucas> My understanding is that we want packages to provide a way to
    Lucas> start daemons and services. Should this be read as:

    Lucas>   Packages should include either service units or init
    Lucas> scripts to start daemons and services [= it works on
    Lucas> systemd].

That sentence does not express a preference between init scripts and
 service units: as you point out both work on systemd.

So I think we read the same so far.


    Lucas> When including service units, packages should also
    Lucas> include init scripts [= the baseline solution].

Where do you get this?
I find no textual support for this reading; it is certainly not my
intent for choice 2 or 3

That is, under choice 2 and 3, it's intended to be acceptable to provide
a service unit and nothing else.


    Lucas> Or is it expected that the "may" in this option stronger than
    Lucas> the "may" in the last option, because of the preceding
    Lucas> paragraph?

No, the difference intended between choice 2 and 3 is about how we
handle technologies like elogind, or a mythical technology that parsed
sysusers files, rather than how we handle starting daemons.