Re: Review of proposals
Sam Hartman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Richter <email@example.com> writes:
> Simon> Non-init-related facilities are where I'd expect
> Simon> incompatibilities to arise, and it is a bit sad that there is
> Simon> only one amendment that effectively addresses this question
> Simon> -- because if amendment D doesn't win, this GR provides
> Simon> absolutely no guidance on what to do about packages that do
> Simon> not work properly or at all if systemd is not PID 1.
> I actually think all of the options provide guidance on this.
Sam, I think you misunderstood Simon's concern. He's not looking for
guidance for packages that don't work properly with sysvinit. He's
looking for guidance for packages that don't work properly with *systemd*
(the inverse of that problem).
I think Sam's option three effectively addresses this (if supporting other
init systems is not a priority, then such packages are buggy with Debian's
only supported init system, which doesn't necessarily mean that they're
RC-buggy but does mean that they're going to be relegated to a fairly
niche place in the archive). The other options may not address this very
My perception is that such packages are rare, and I don't see any reason
why they would be RC-buggy in any circumstance (Debian has no problem
packaging programs that only work in very special configurations), but
there are some technical questions that I think the GR will leave mostly
unanswered, such as how to declare a meaningful dependency to make it
clear this is the case.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>