Hi, On 17/10/14 12:44 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > It is now clear that we will have a vote on this issue. I think that we > should use this opportunity to clarify the Project's position, and that's > not something that would be achieved if "Further Discussion" were to > win. > > I am therefore bringing forward an alternative proposal, deeply inspired > from the "Advice: sysvinit compatibility in jessie and multiple init > support" option of the TC resolution on init system coupling[1], which > was originally written by Russ Allbery[2] and was then amended by many > participants to the discussion in February 2014. > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00575.html > [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00447.html > > ------------------------- begin proposal ------------------------->8 > Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its default > init system for the next release. The technical committee decided not to > decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether other packages in > Debian may depend on a particular init system. However, the technical > committee stated in #746715 that "[it] expects maintainers to continue to > support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes > merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing support > without a compelling reason." > > The Debian Project states that: > > Software should support as many architectures as reasonably possible, > and it should normally support the default init system on all > architectures for which it is built. There are some exceptional cases > where lack of support for the default init system may be appropriate, > such as alternative init system implementations, special-use packages > such as managers for non-default init systems, and cooperating > groups of packages intended for use with non-default init systems. > However, package maintainers should be aware that a requirement for a > non-default init system will mean the software will be unusable for > most Debian users and should normally be avoided. > > Package maintainers are strongly encouraged to merge any contributions > for support of any init system, and to add that support themselves if > they're willing and capable of doing so. In particular, package > maintainers should put a high priority on merging changes to support > any init system which is the default on one of Debian's non-Linux > ports. > > For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run > under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no > technically feasible way to do so. Reasonable changes to preserve > or improve sysvinit support should be accepted through the jessie > release. There may be some loss of functionality under sysvinit if > that loss is considered acceptable by the package maintainer and > the package is still basically functional, but Debian's standard > requirement to support smooth upgrades from wheezy to jessie still > applies, even when the system is booted with sysvinit. > > The Debian Project makes no statement at this time on sysvinit support > beyond the jessie release. > > > This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day > (Constitution 4.1.5), triggering the General Resolution override clause > in the TC's resolution of the 11th of February. > > The TC's decision on the default init system for Linux in jessie stands > undisturbed. > > However, the TC resolution is altered to add the additional text above. > -------------------------- end proposal -------------------------->8
Seconded. Thanks for writing a counter-proposal Lucas! Regards, Vincent
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
