Thanks for helping; resolving these sort of ambiguities are really
appreciated.
>>>>> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> writes:
Lucas> Hi,
Lucas> On 07/11/19 at 13:04 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives
>> Packages should include service units or init scripts to start
>> daemons and services. Packages may include support for alternate
>> init systems besides systemd and may include alternatives for any
>> systemd-specific interfaces they use. Maintainers use their
>> normal procedures for deciding which patches to include.
Lucas> I find this paragraph a bit hard to parse.
Lucas> "Packages should include service units or init scripts to
Lucas> start daemons and services."
Lucas> My understanding is that we want packages to provide a way to
Lucas> start daemons and services. Should this be read as:
Lucas> Packages should include either service units or init
Lucas> scripts to start daemons and services [= it works on
Lucas> systemd].
That sentence does not express a preference between init scripts and
service units: as you point out both work on systemd.
So I think we read the same so far.
Lucas> When including service units, packages should also
Lucas> include init scripts [= the baseline solution].
Where do you get this?
I find no textual support for this reading; it is certainly not my
intent for choice 2 or 3
That is, under choice 2 and 3, it's intended to be acceptable to provide
a service unit and nothing else.
Lucas> Or is it expected that the "may" in this option stronger than
Lucas> the "may" in the last option, because of the preceding
Lucas> paragraph?
No, the difference intended between choice 2 and 3 is about how we
handle technologies like elogind, or a mythical technology that parsed
sysusers files, rather than how we handle starting daemons.
