Re: Review of proposals
Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes:
> I think that clause 9 could be significantly reduced, to something such
> as the following, which still captures the main ideas of the current
> clause. But we clearly disagree on how much details should go into the
> GR, and I don't see us agreeing anytime soon :)
> 9. systemd provides a variety of facilities besides daemon startup.
> For example, creating system users or temporary directories. When
> those are better than the current Debian approaches, transitions
> should be carried out while ensuring that it is possible for the
> non-systemd community to implement support for the new facility in
> non-systemd systems, in order to ensure a smooth transition for all
> users. This includes, for example, proper documentation of the
> specification of the new facility, and a transition plan that allows
> enough time to work on alternative implementations of the facility.
Speaking as one of the Policy editors, personally I'd rather have the
explicit time frame so that we don't have to argue about what "enough
time" means. I like Ian's explicit list, which preempts a lot of the
expected arguments.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: