[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR


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

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


Reply to: