On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 06:05:47PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Stapelberg writes ("Bug#727708: Bits from linux.conf.au"):
> > Agreed. Effectively, this puts a lot of burden on individual maintainers
> > (and also on some external packagers) to test their packages with 2+
> > init systems and become familiar with how to properly mask units/handle
> > diverting names, what features each system supports, what the best
> > practices for each are, etc.
>
> I would expect the community for that init system to do the work. So
> the burden on maintainers ought to be minimal. All they ought to be
> required to do is ship the init-system-specific config thingy supplied
> by the community who are interested in that init system. That might
> even be done by NMU so the maintainer would often not have to do
> anything at all.
Clearly, that's not the end of the job. systemd/upstart/whatever
configs could be buggy as everything other. Currently, if maintainer
provides sysv init script - he is responsible for related bugreports.
Who is responsible for supporting this in your scheme? Or
systemd/upstart configs supposed to be written once and
work well forever?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
