Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR
Hi,
On 07/11/19 at 13:04 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives
>
>
> The Debian project recognizes that systemd service units are the
> preferred configuration for describing how to start a daemon/service.
> However, Debian remains an environment where developers and users can
> explore and develop alternate init systems and alternatives to systemd
> features. Those interested in exploring such alternatives need to
> provide the necessary development and packaging resources to do that
> work. Technologies such as elogind that facilitate exploring
> alternatives while running software that depends on some systemd
> interfaces remain important to Debian. It is important that the
> project support the efforts of developers working on such technologies
> where there is overlap between these technologies and the rest of the
> project, for example by reviewing patches and participating in
> discussions in a timely manner.
>
>
> 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.
I find this paragraph a bit hard to parse.
"Packages should include service units or init scripts to start
daemons and services."
My understanding is that we want packages to provide a way to start
daemons and services. Should this be read as:
Packages should include either service units or init scripts to start
daemons and services [= it works on systemd]. When including service
units, packages should also include init scripts [= the baseline
solution].
Or is it expected that the "may" in this option stronger than the "may"
in the last option, because of the preceding paragraph?
Lucas
Reply to: