Dmitry Bogatov <kact...@disroot.org> writes: > So, here is my rewording, much simplier and shorter.
> Choice 1: Affirm Init Diversity > > Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than > systemd continues to be value for the project. Package not > working with pid1 != systemd is RC bug, unless it was designed > by upstream to work exclusively with systemd. > Missing init script for package with daemon is RC bug. The second and third sentences contradict each other. I think you mean for the second sentence to be overriding, meaning that a daemon whose upstream authors only support systemd can be packaged without an init script. But could you confirm? (And rephrase if you end up offering this as an amendment?) The implication I would take as Policy editor from this option winning is that any systemd service that is not supported by (all?) other init systems in Debian must not be used, except in packages whose upstreams only support systemd. Packages whose upstreams only support systemd may use those facilities freely. BTW, if this option passed, I believe the implication would also be that all GNOME ecosystem packages can drop all sysvinit support and that no maintainers of packages designed upstream to work with logind are under any obligation to support elogind. Is that what you intend? These questions aren't intended to be confrontational and they're not trick questions. I plan on trying to turn the results of this GR into Policy language, and these are the issues that will come up. I'm pushing for this GR to be as explicit and unambiguous about its consequences as possible. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
