Russ Allbery writes: > Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> writes: >> On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 15:08 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>> Unless the project or relevant parties have agreed otherwise, systemd >>> facilities, where they exist and are stable and supported by the >>> systemd maintainers, should be preferred over Debian-specific ways of >>> solving the same problem unless the Debian approach has clear and >>> obvious advantages. > >> I don't think this is really what we might want: when there are multiple >> competing options, Debian-specific or not, developed under the systemd >> umbrella or not, which on Debian packagers decide to use should only be >> on merit, i.e. there shouldn't be an implicit "we choose systemd by >> default". > > This is the reason why I put "supported by the systemd maintainers" here, > although that may not be sufficient to address your concern. But the idea > I had in mind was that the decision of whether to support the systemd > facility would be an informed choice that takes into account concerns like > that.
It's mostly that it pushes systemd preference a bit more than my preference, mostly because the short text also reads "Focus on systemd for [...] other facilities", but I have no preference for systemd over other implementations for "other facilities". I see value in cross-distribution collaboration which might be an advantage of solutions developed under the systemd umbrella, but that's not inherent so: it's the same for any other non-Debian specific implementation. Debian-specific solutions of course are also still fine if we believe these to be the best fit to our needs. Ansgar
