Hello, On Tue 13 Jun 2023 at 05:58PM +01, Mark Hindley wrote:
> There is a new upstream version of elogind[1] that is already packaged in > Devuan[2] although that uncovered up an upstream issue that I am waiting to be > resolved[3]. So, maybe by the end of this month? > > However, that is only considering whether the packaging and dependencies can > be > made to work (like Simon McVittie, I think they probably can). > > I remain much less convinced that there is a consensus for requiring packages > to > use tmpfiles.d(5) for /var, /tmp and maybe /etc. The recent thread on > debian-devel demonstrated a range of opinion. Thorsten and Bill have just > raised > valid points about chroots. > > So, whilst I am happy to test the dependency changes in elogind, enshrining > this > as a 'should' in the Policy now seems, at least, premature. Cool, thank you. This will simplify resolving this bug. > Reading the proposed text as somebody who is particularly interested > in non-systemd systems, I am struck by the inconsistency between > > Init systems other than ``systemd`` should allow providing the same > functionality as appropriate for each system, for example managing the > directories from the init script shipped by the package. > > and the fact that we no longer expect packages to include init scripts > alongside > their systemd units and even accept their removal, even if other interested > people offer to maintain them and provide tested patches. I'm sympathetic, though, this in itself is not a Policy issue. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
