Re: Draft text on Init Systems GR
Dmitry Bogatov <KAction@disroot.org> writes:
> So, here is my rewording, much simplier and shorter.
> Choice 1: Affirm Init Diversity
>
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be value for the project. Package not
> working with pid1 != systemd is RC bug, unless it was designed
> by upstream to work exclusively with systemd.
> Missing init script for package with daemon is RC bug.
The second and third sentences contradict each other. I think you mean
for the second sentence to be overriding, meaning that a daemon whose
upstream authors only support systemd can be packaged without an init
script. But could you confirm? (And rephrase if you end up offering this
as an amendment?)
The implication I would take as Policy editor from this option winning is
that any systemd service that is not supported by (all?) other init
systems in Debian must not be used, except in packages whose upstreams
only support systemd. Packages whose upstreams only support systemd may
use those facilities freely.
BTW, if this option passed, I believe the implication would also be that
all GNOME ecosystem packages can drop all sysvinit support and that no
maintainers of packages designed upstream to work with logind are under
any obligation to support elogind. Is that what you intend?
These questions aren't intended to be confrontational and they're not
trick questions. I plan on trying to turn the results of this GR into
Policy language, and these are the issues that will come up. I'm pushing
for this GR to be as explicit and unambiguous about its consequences as
possible.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: