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

Re: Draft text on Init Systems GR

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Draft text on Init Systems GR"):
> 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.

Right.  But, taking for example, "daemons meant to only work with
socket activation".

For many such daemons, it would be easy to patch them to be able to
work with inetd.  If I wanted to run such a daemon I would probably
write that patch, along with appropriate inetd.d or whatever.

Dmitry's current wording would seem to support a maintainer who
rejected that patch; at least, it wouldn't make failing to take it RC.
A maintainer who doesn't see value in non-systemd systems might not
take the patch simply because they don't expect upstream to take it
and don't feel like carrying it.

Similar arguments might be made about some of your other examples.

Hence my suggestion of adding
   and no support for running without systemd is available
to Dmitry's text.


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: