Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
    Wouter> Oh, right. Okay. I suppose that makes sense; the nbd-client
    Wouter> init script hasn't been touched since I wrote the nbd-client
    Wouter> systemd unit, and so I can't really guarantee that it will
    Wouter> work very well anymore.

    Wouter> I guess I was misunderstanding what Sam was writing
    Wouter> initially; I thought he just meant that "if you do early
    Wouter> boot, then we don't care about other init systems", which
    Wouter> seems like it would make the whole point moot.
    
    Wouter> Perhaps
    Wouter> rather than that, the GR should say something like:

    Wouter> "Due to the higher level of complexity inherent to
    Wouter> early-boot services, it is expected that the init scripts
    Wouter> (or equivalent) for services initialized during early boot
    Wouter> be maintained by the maintainers of the init system in
    Wouter> question, rather than by the maintainers of the service's
    Wouter> package"

I like this  sentence, and if we get significant support from those who
favor choice 1, I would accept that amendment.
Meanwhile, I think I can go as far as

>Policy notes that early boot services like those started from
>/etc/rcS.d may be tied closely to the init system in use and thus may
>need to be handled differently for each init system

well within the spirit of the current choice 1.

I'd definitely like to resolve this ambiguity.  All I'm trying to do is
accurately summarize policy/our thinking on this issue in that
sentence.  That sentence is not even intended to make any changes, but
calling out this point was important to Martin.