On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 12:01 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > > "Also, SysV-style init scripts may be omitted for packages which have > > an explicit dependency on an alternate init system."
What sort of dependencies are we talking about? Package-level dependencies (e.g. Depends: systemd-sysv directly or indirectly)? > People who don't like systemd have been working to provide replacements > for these hard dependencies. E.g. there is elogind so that packages > which depend on logind can work on a sysvinit system. > > We would want to be careful to word this requirement such that it did > not license maintainers to do things which block the work of those who > don't like systemd. How would this "block the work of those who don't like systemd"? We do not have a requirement to ship systemd .service units, but that doesn't seem to have blocked anyone from submitting patches adding those. It seems reasonable it would work the same for other init systems. Ansgar
