Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Should I withdraw choice hartmans1?"):
> I think two key differences between this choice and Dmitry's option are
> that:
>
> A) Init diversity issues are valid for an NMU but are never serious
>
> B) Dmitry's option puts specific obligations on maintainers to write
> init scripts when it is easy to do so.
>
> so, perhaps we can find a title based on those.
I think the most important difference between your proposal and
Dmitry's is that your proposal, as I say, (and I think unlike
Dmitry's):
legitimise[s] uncontrolled adoption of non-daemon-startup
systemd features
IMO this would be a serious problem in practice. It is difficult to
square it with something to do with affirming or promoting init
diversity.
> I'll also note that while you did take the opportunity to talk about why
> you'd rank the proposal below FD, you did not answer the question of
> whether you would like to see it removed from the ballot.
I said I would rank it below Dmitry's. I haven't yet decided my
placement of FD.
I think it should be removed from the ballot unless some init
diversity supporter tells us they think it should be kept.
Maybe that person would be able to provide a summary of what they
think it is good for.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
