Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:58:52AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> 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.
That is definitely clearer, yes.
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard