On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 08:56:44PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * 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).
I think this class of problem is handled by saying "software" rather than "packages", much as we're saying "requires" rather than "depends on"; I generally like Ian's approach of not trying to overspecify here. If people feel this is unclear then maybe we need some kind of for-avoidance-of-doubt rubric though. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
