On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 02:28:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: [snip] > The wording in my resolution comes from the TC discussion and > specifies `at least one' or `some alternative'. To represent that as > `all' is IMO misleading. > > One important difference between `all' and `at least one' is this: > suppose there is some init system that does not support the common > interface you suppose in your point (2). Saying `all' suggests that > it is somehow the fault of the packages which deal with the common > interface. This point was raised in the TC discussion. > > Saying `all' gives the impression that every package must do work for > each init system. That is why my proposal's wording simply says that > packages are forbidden from requiring `a specific' init system.
OK, so packaging uselessd (thus providing another init system that provides -- most of -- the systemd interfaces) would solve all your worries? [snip] Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <t...@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141019141318.gc8...@hirohito.acc.umu.se
