Re: Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?"):
> 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.
>From hartmans1:
Similarly, packages may freely use other systemd facilities such as
timer units, subject to the above constraints, but not also supporting
non-systemd systems is a (non-serious) bug and non-maintainer uploads
to add that support are appropriate.
Consider a package which ships (only) a timer unit for some important
function. hartmans1 declares that a bug but in the same paragraph
specifically says the maintainer may introduce such a bug.
> 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.
My hypothetical package would be RC-buggy in Dmitry's proposal because
the important function is not available when systemd is not pid 1.
Of course there is some wiggle room here about "MUST work with". It
is possible to imagine nonessential functionality being done only via
a timer unit. In practice I expect that if Dmitry's option were to
win this GR, maintainers would take the hint and this would not be a
problem in practice.
> 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.
I think saying
Packages may freely ..., but
is legitimising.
> 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.
Maybe that is what I am saying.
Dmitry's proposal is better than this because it is simple. If we are
going to be that clear about where we stand, then we should be clear.
Ian.
--
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: