On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 11:21:53 -0700 Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> writes: > > > systemd upstream will drop support for the transitional sysv generator > > in the near future. The transition is long finished, it's been at least > > a decade, and it's time for the tail of packages still shipping only > > init scripts but not units to be updated. > > Has there already been a mass bug filing for packages that ship init > scripts but not systemd unit files? > > > Tentatively this should happen within Trixie's development cycle. Of > > course it's free software and generators are not that difficult to > > maintain, so if someone wanted to lift the sysv generator out of the > > systemd repository and adapt it to be a standalone binary there's > > nothing stopping them. But I wouldn't want the systemd package to > > depend on such a backward compat tool, so packages needing this > > hyptothetical package should depend explicitly on it. This is just > > mentioned for completeness, it's been at least a decade and writing a > > unit file is beyond trivial so there shouldn't be any issue adding the > > few remaining ones. > > > Once the policy is updated I plan to ask Lintian to bump the severity > > of the existing check: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/merge_requests/407 > > Assuming the mass bug filing hasn't already happened and I missed it, I > think this is the wrong order. This sort of large-scale breaking change > should always start with a mass bug filing against all affected packages. > I think the right process is: > > * Raise this in debian-devel and propose a mass bug filing requiring all > packages to add systemd unit files if they currently only have init > scripts. This gives people the opportunity to object or take over > maintenance of the unit file generator and document how to depend on it > if they wish to do that instead. (I don't think that's a good idea, but > we should let the discussion happen.) > > * Unless something surprising happens in that discussion, do a mass bug > filing for this transition and bump the Lintian severity at the same > time. > > * Once that has consensus and is underway, *then* change Policy to reflect > this project decision. > > If the mass bug filing already happened and I just didn't notice, my > apologies.
This happened a few days ago and nobody complained (if we ignore grumblings because of the fact that I used lintian.debian.org queries which are hopelessly and silently out of date, sigh), and bugs are filed, there have been a couple of uploads too already. Can we go ahead, or do you want to wait a specified amount of time? If so, how long (just so that I know when to come back)? -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
