On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 12:29:50AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > But this is even more troubling: > > There was less support from the Debian policy manual. Perhaps there > > is some other systemd Debian packaging guidance somewhere which I > > didn't find.
> Incorporating upstart packaging in the Debian policy before the decision > that is currently being discussed was inappropriate and premature. From > my point of view, it would be absurd to integrate a systemd policy > before a decision to use it is made. It seems even more absurd that the > lack of such a policy is used as an argument in the discussion that > should lead to its writing. The upstart packaging guidance was written into policy because integrating with a new init system requires changes that could in some cases be violations of existing policy. It's not ok to simply ignore policy and deploy sweeping changes in the archive with our users as the guinea pigs. Packages are shipping systemd units in the archive today, and Policy *should* cover this case. Currently, it covers this by saying "you can integrate with systemd, but must still provide compatibility with sysvinit", which I think is fine at this stage. It's never premature to be a good citizen in Debian. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
