Re: Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> I think the most important difference between your proposal and
Ian> Dmitry's is that your proposal, as I say, (and I think unlike
Ian> Dmitry's):
Ian> legitimise[s] uncontrolled adoption of non-daemon-startup
Ian> systemd features
Choice hartmans1 permits the use of non-startup systemd features.
Under this choice, that's fine so long as the package continues to work
with non-systemd systems.
I think that's true with Dmitry's choice as well.
Under his choice, I think a package can do whatever it likes so long as
it works when systemd is not pid 1.
Under choice hartmans1 failing to work when systemd is not pid 1 is a
bug. It's a sufficiently important bug that patches can be NMUed to fix
it.
But it is not a serious bug.
Under Dmitry's proposal that is also a bug, but I assume that the word
"must" even outside of a policy context means Dmitry is hoping that bug
will be considered RC.
Under both proposals, a package that fails to work witha non-systemd
pid1 is buggy. In my mind, there is a significant gap between making
something buggy and legitimizing something, and I think choice hartmans1
is closer to making something buggy than legitimizing it. If you see
the difference in bug sevirity as legitimizing, well, we find ourselves
not in agreement.
If, on the other hand, you find that the text of the proposal, beyond
its effects, tends to legitimize the practice, that is not my intent.
Reply to: