[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR"):
> I was assuming that logind was out of scope (as was udev) because both
> have already been adopted by Debian, so this isn't the same situation that
> Ian's proposal is describing.  The remaining facilities that I was
> thinking about are much more straightforward to describe.

For logind we have elogind.  So (now that elogind is in bullseye) I
hope that this is not going to be significant point of contention in
practice.  Does this need mentioning ?  If so, what points of
contention do we expect ?  "logind grows a new feature" ought not to
be a significant difficulty since we would expect that elogind would
also grow that same feature.

I would be happy to accept wording suggestions which would help
clarify this.

> You raise a good point that this may be challenging if another interface
> of the complexity of logind or udev is added and Debian wants to adopt it.
> I'm willing to take that risk, but it's a risk.

This doesn't seem to be on the horizon as yet.  My proposal is indeed
much less specific about how to deal with such a situation.  It gives
vague general principles but doesn't nail down the ground rules for
cooperation, the way it does for the existing known problems.

I don't think we can sensibly make a decision about this hypothetical
situation, now.  Whether we would want to adopt such a thing would
depend on what it was like and what the implications were.  The best
we can hope for is that when we get to this bridge we (1) have some
more experience of peaceful coexistence (2) we can get a good-enough
consensus on something that is tolerable to most people.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: