On 18/10/14 at 12:21 +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote: > 2. Specific init systems as PID 1 > > Debian packages may require a specific init system to be executed > as PID 1 if their maintainers consider this a requisite for its proper > operation by clearly mark this in package descriptions and/or > by adding dependencies in order to enforce this; and no patches > or other derived works exist in order to support other init systems > in such a way to render software usable to the same extent.
I think that it would be interesting to frame this statement in the context of the existence of a default init system. It would then either mean: 1) packages may require the default init system if: - their maintainer consider this a prerequisite for its proper operation - no patches or other derived works exist in order to support other init systems 2) packages may require an init system other than the default init system if: - their maintainer consider this a prerequisite for its proper operation - no patches or other derived works exist in order to support other init systems, including the default init system These two cases are very different. I would personally probably vote (1) above FD, but (2) far below FD. I think that it should be a requirement for packages in Debian to support the default init system at least in a degraded mode, except for very specific packages (see Ian's or my proposal for exceptions). (2) could lead to fragmentation in the services/init systems available in Debian, because it would no longer be the maintainers' responsibility to ensure that all packages work with the same init system. Could you clarify if (2) is really a loophole in the current formulation, or something that you consider acceptable? Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
