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

Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd

Sam Hartman writes:
> Choice hartmans3: Focus on systemd for Init System and Other Facilities
> Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues
> the following statement describing our current position on Init
> systems, Init system diversity, and the use of systemd facilities.  This
> statement describes the position of the project at the time it is
> adopted.  That position may evolve as time passes without the need to
> resort to future general resolutions.  The GR process remains
> available if the project needs a decision and cannot come to a
> consensus.
> The Debian project recognizes that systemd service units are the
> preferred configuration for describing how to start a daemon/service.
> Packages should include service units or init scripts to start daemons
> and services.  Unless the project or relevant parties have agreed
> otherwise, systemd facilities, where they exist and are stable and
> supported by the systemd maintainers, should be preferred over
> Debian-specific ways of solving the same problem unless the Debian
> approach has clear and obvious advantages.
> Providing support for multiple init systems or for alternatives to
> other interfaces provided by systemd is not a project priority at this
> time.
> Debian is committed to working with derivatives that make different
> choices about init systems.  As with all our interactions with
> downstreams, the relevant maintainers will work with the downstreams to
> figure out which changes it makes sense to fold into Debian and which
> changes remain purely in the derivative.
> Packages may include support for alternate init systems besides
> systemd.  Maintainers use their normal procedures for deciding which
> patches to include.


I think we should eventually move on from sysvinit-compatible init
scripts as mandatory lowest common denominator for all init systems and
so far this is the only proposal which seems to allow so.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: