Colin Watson writes ("Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > L really reads to me like a way to enforce support for all init systems
> > alike (thereby ensuring that the default init gets the same [bad]
> > support) on maintainers and I feel it's too coercitive.
>
> I don't interpret L as meaning that everything must support "all" init
> systems, certainly not "alike" (indeed the text of that option is
> explicit that it isn't necessarily alike). Rather, I interpret it as
> saying that software-outside-init must be flexible enough to cope with
> that possibility, and degrade sensibly to a lowest common subset of init
> system features (IOW in practice, needs to keep working if sysvinit is
> pid 1). Actual support for things beyond that minimum will require
> people who care about various init systems to step up and implement it.
Precisely.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
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/21235.27196.910513.471...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
