Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR"):
> Ah, I think this is making me realize there's a somewhat odd conflict
> between point 7 and point 8 that I didn't notice. The criteria in point 7
> is stronger (the contributed support does not introduce an RC bug) than in
> point 8 (the contributed change does not impose non-trivial risks on users
> of the default configuration), and now I'm unsure which would apply here.
Point 8 is primarily about systemd components. Point 7 is about
packages in general directly supporting non-systemd setups, where the
contribution is to add that support.
> I think the best approach would be that the point 7 criteria (the patch
> needs to be applied unless it introduces an RC bug) should apply if the
> sysvinit support doesn't change behavior substantially under systemd, and
> the point 8 criteria should apply if it does. So, for instance, changing
> the packaging to build two versions of the GNOME stack, one requiring
> systemd and one not, would use the point 7 criteria, but changing the
> build options for everyone to use the mechanism compatible with
> non-systemd systems would use the point 8 criteria. But it's not clear to
> me that Ian's text says this.
You have got my intent right. How about this as a suggested fix
patches which contribute support for other init
+ (with no substantial effect on systemd installations)
should be filed as bugs with severity `serious'
leaving changes which *do* have such a substantial effect to be dealt
with under 8.
I say "on systemd *installations*" (emph. added) because obviously
building two versions would have a substantial effect on build
Do you think this is clearer and has the right effect ? I am open to
other suggestions. If we come to a conclusion on an improved wording
here, I guess someone ought to formally propose it. I guess it will
fall to me to do that.
It is not clear to me who can "accept" it - would that me be as the
proposer of this version, or Sam as the original proposer ? Perhaps
Kurt's life would be made easier if Sam would, at the appropriate
point, indicate his approval. CC'ing secretary@ about this. (Sorry,
Kurt. I think this is my bug in the constitution.)
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> 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.