Re: Draft text on Init Systems GR
Thibaut Paumard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I think this is very ambiguous and my immediate interpretation is
> probably not what the original proposer means. The two extreme
> interpretations I see for "designed to work exclusively with systemd"
> - my guess for the OP meaning: some piece of software that is directly
> related to systemd, tries to enhance it and in the end should be part of it;
> - my immediate interpretation: any piece of software where upstream
> does not care for (or does not have the resources to support) non-systemd.
> The first interpretation is very strong but difficult to phrase in a
> less ambiguous manner.
> The second interpretation is so very light that this option on the
> ballot is effectively equivalent to "scrap everything, support only
As Policy editor, I would interpret "designed to work exclusively with
systemd" as including any software that, upstream, had a hard dependency
on a systemd feature. That includes obvious things like logind, but also
daemons meant to only work with socket activation, any early-boot packages
that expect systemd behavior and are only tested with systemd, or software
that relies on systemd sandboxing and would be RC-buggy without it.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>