Hi Martin, On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 01:37:13PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello Wouter, > > Wouter Verhelst [2019-11-09 10:32 +0200]: > > > Choice 1: Affirm Init Diversity > > > > > > Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd > > > continues to be something that the project values. With one > > > exception, the Debian Project affirms the current policy on init > > > scripts and starting daemons (policy 9.3.2, 9.11). Roughly, packages > > > should include init scripts to start services that are included. > > > Policy notes that early boot services like those started from > > > /etc/rcS.d may be tied closely to the init system in use. > > > > I don't see why this is relevant in the current discussion. > > > > My nbd-client package is one that is relevant here; it has a systemd > > unit, and an rcS init script (which is then ignored by systemd). If this > > choice wins, then init scripts remain mandatory. If you provide an rcS > > init script, then systemd units are also mandatory. [...] > This is the one thing in that GR that I have a strong opinion on (backed by > doing *two* init system migrations in my life): Choice 1 is a non-starter if it > mandates distributed SysV init script maintenance for early-boot services. If > these are exept, and maintained/QAed by the corresponding init system, then > Choice 1 is very sensible and practical. Oh, right. Okay. I suppose that makes sense; the nbd-client init script hasn't been touched since I wrote the nbd-client systemd unit, and so I can't really guarantee that it will work very well anymore. I guess I was misunderstanding what Sam was writing initially; I thought he just meant that "if you do early boot, then we don't care about other init systems", which seems like it would make the whole point moot. Perhaps rather than that, the GR should say something like: "Due to the higher level of complexity inherent to early-boot services, it is expected that the init scripts (or equivalent) for services initialized during early boot be maintained by the maintainers of the init system in question, rather than by the maintainers of the service's package" which would clarify a bit more what is meant there, I think. > I wish that the GR text could expand on that a little bit, but I do appreciate > that this quickly gets into the trenches of deep technical details. For now I > interpret the last sentence as a sufficient exception (avoiding the word > "loophole") for that scenario. Does that help? ;-) -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature