Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
>> I've written a version of Niklaus's rule about dependencies:
Just for the record, my suggestion was to include language that
regulates dependencies on the init system, but I do not have any
preferences whether they should be allowed or forbidden.
>> Likewise, packages must not Depend on or Recommend (directly or
>> indirectly) a specific init(1). Violations of this are also an RC
>> bug in jessie.
>
>> And:
>
>> Theses rules do not apply to machinery which itself forms part of
>> the implementation of one or more init systems.
>
>> That seems to be the clearest way to put the matter.
>
> This seems fine to me, at least for right now. I'm doing a bit of
> additional research right now to be sure that I understand the
> implications of this and may end up asking for any problems that anyone is
> aware of with this approach, just to be sure we're not missing
> something.
Well, we may end up in a somewhat paradoxical situation where Debian
comes with packages for alternate init systems, but at the same time
cannot package any utilities specifically designed for them -- unless
they are included in the alternate init package itself.
Best,
Nikolaus
--
Encrypted emails preferred.
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87iou02wq1....@vostro.rath.org
