On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 12:24 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > It's not like having two competing implementations causes much > harm here.we technically _can_ allow any /bin/systemd-* to be > provided by another implementation, that we should (actually, I think > we should clearly _not_).
Of course the name should not be systemd-*. That would conflict with systemd upstream, and a lot of other stuff too! > /usr/bin/systemd-* is clearly implementation-specific. Now, if we are > to allow alternative implementations of /usr/bin/system-brewmycoffee, no way! > we should first push to an alternative /usr/bin/brewmycoffee, get the > systemd maintainers to "subscribe" to it using our great alternatives > system, and provide our /usr/bin/open-brewmycoffee. Why should they be subscribing? There are other people within Debian who can provide alternatives. > And I think that now, that not so many packages have yet adopted > systemd-derived facilities, is a great time to set this as a good > practice. Is this your interpretation of the GR?
