[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"):
> 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
infrastructure etc.

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 <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: