* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140221 13:37]:
> Andreas Barth writes ("Bug#727708: init system coupling etc."):
> > Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [140219 19:24]:
> > > How does this sound to you?
> > >
> > > Packages should normally support the default init system on all
> > > architectures for which they are built. There are some exceptional
> > > cases where lack of support for the default init system may be
> > > appropriate, such as alternative init system implementations,
> > > special-use packages such as managers for non-default init systems,
> > > and cooperating groups of packages intended for use with non-default
> > > init systems. However, package maintainers should be aware that a
> > > requirement for a non-default init system will mean the package will
> > > be unusable for most Debian users and should normally be avoided.
> >
> > Better but I think we should also point out that supporting different
> > architectures is a good thing.
> >
> > So the first sentence rather as
> > | Packages should support as many architectures as reasonably possible,
> > | and they should normally ...
> >
> > Also I'd like to amend the last sentence with ", and could constitute
> > an serious bug of the package." (which is a correct observation
> > according to the current RC policy)
>
> Russ has already amended his text to say "Software should ...". So
> when transposing your amendment onto Russ's new text, I have to decide
> between using your new text verbatim (effectively reverting that
> change), or treating your proposal as a request to change only the
> parts you are actually aiming at.
>
> I'm going to do the latter because it appears to best reflect your
> intent. This results in
Yes, that was the intention (basically it was a patch). Thanks.
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
