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

Re: Review of proposals

Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> 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 (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: