* Colin Watson (cjwat...@debian.org) [140213 19:09]: > To start with, I therefore propose the following amendment to L. I > think it is no weaker except in ways that we would agree were in fact OK > if we found ourselves needing to rule on them specifically, and this > addresses points that people have raised here. The first paragraph of > the "loose coupling" section is replaced by the following: > > In general, software may not require a specific init system to be pid > 1, although degraded operation is tolerable. The exceptions to this > are as follows: > > * alternative init system implementations > * special-use packages such as managers for init systems > * cooperating groups of packages intended for use with specific init > systems I'm not sure if this already covers the case of glue-packages, or if we need to cover them (i.e. for a package foo, it's ok, if foo depends on foo-sysv | foo-systemd | foo-upstart | foo-openrc, and each of those four depends on a specific init system).
> provided that these are not themselves required by other software > whose main purpose is not the operation of a specific init system. I think we agree that "required" doesn't involve cases where such a package is just one of a different set of packages which fulfils that requirement (via virtual packages or alternatives). > Russ, can you give an example of a package that currently supports > sysvinit where you would be happy that it might stop supporting it for > jessie due to a lack of technical feasibility? If this is advice, I think we can drop that part (for a decision that might be different, and an indication that it might be possible that there are exceptions might be appropriate). Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
