Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > I don't think either of these are the right question. Even if we change > the default init system for jessie, because we *must* support backwards > compatibility with sysvinit for upgrades, there is no justification for > requiring packages to do anything else for jessie and no policy change > is needed.
That isn't obvious to me. We have, in the past, allowed upgrades to require a preliminary upgrade of one or more packages. The udev transition comes to mind. We *could* do the same thing here and require an init upgrade as a pre-upgrade step when going from wheezy to jessie, alongside a dependency on systemd or upstart (added by debhelper, for example) for all packages providing startup configuration but not an init script. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good option, but it is an option that we should discuss. Also, we will eventually have to decide whether to drop the requirement that packages provide sysvinit-compatible init scripts. Even if we agree on a requirement to do so for jessie, we could drop that requirement for jessie+1 (and indeed will want to if we choose any init system other than sysvinit or "all of the above," given that most of the benefits of either upstart or systemd from a packaging perspective will only be seen when we take that step). We could always defer that decision until jessie+1, but that's the decision with the most impact on kFreeBSD and Hurd, and if I were them, I'd want to know whether that's the eventual project direction or not as soon as possible so that I have as much time as possible to decide on my next steps. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
