Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > So to make my position clear: L does not accurately reflect what I think we > should be doing; but given the option between L and T, I was willing to vote > L above FD and was not willing to vote T above FD because I think T > unambiguously sets the stage for all other init systems to wither away in > Debian and I think it's foolish for the TC to say they are "welcome" under > such circumstances.
Reading this message, it seems clear to me that you have separated the
issue originally raised in this bug (default init for jessie) from the
policy question of whether packages should be allowed to have explicit
init system dependencies. I think this is a good thing.
I believe that votes cast in the last ballot demonstrate a unanimous
agreement that the answer for this package dependency question does not
in any way depend on which init system is the default, and so this
question could be resolved separately, with the question originally
brought to the ctte resolved in another vote.
I also think this vote can be represented by two (or maybe three) choices:
1) The ctte takes no position on this issue at this time.
2) Packages may depend on new init features, but those must be stated
as virtual dependencies which can be satisfied by any init system
and/or
3) Packages must work with all init systems, potentially with reduced
functionality
Please read all of these as referring to more complete language already
present in this bug report, and not as an attempt to rewrite the
proposed options.
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
pgpL9iE7N1Vn0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
