Russ Allbery writes: > Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> writes: >> How to proceed with this? Do you still require any wording changes? > > I think we can proceed to add a Policy "should" for including a systemd > unit file unless someone raises objections pretty soon here. So far, I > haven't seen any objections to the basic idea.
Okay. Anything further I should do except wait? >> Or should we consider making shipping a sysvinit script, but no systemd >> unit a RC bug? Dmitry seems to be concerned that people might just >> waive it away; I don't think this needs to be a RC bug, but it might >> slow adoption. > > Making it an RC bug seems much too aggressive to start with. We can look > at whether that makes sense later, but right now it would make far too > many packages instantly buggy. I agree. I think it should likely stay "should" in the future anyway (as it is currently for sysvinit too). > We're doing some of that already even by introducing a "should," and > there's some argument to be made for starting with a Lintian warning > instead, but I'm not inclined to be that conservative here, mostly because > we're long-overdue for saying something, and I think the should is fairly > mild in this case. I think there is already a lintian warning: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-systemd-service-for-init.d-script.html Ansgar
