-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 03/30/2014 10:57 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/30/2014 08:02 PM, The Wanderer wrote: > >> If it's been decided to continue to require package maintainers to >> provide traditional init scripts as well as systemd unit files - >> e.g. for Debian's non-Linux ports - then that benefit would be >> lost. <snip> >> If it hasn't, then I think it's entirely foreseeable that package >> maintainers will at some point stop providing traditional init >> scripts. > > They should absolutely *not* remove init scripts that are working. If > someone does, I would advise to first politely ask him to revert the > regression. And probably asking the TC to force the maintainer to do > so if he refuses would be a good idea. What about an init script that used to work, but has stopped working, due to e.g. a change in the rest of the package or a change in the surrounding system? Obviously if someone comes up with a fix to get it working again, the same "maintainers who don't maintain traditional init scripts should accept patches from others" would apply. If no such fix is forthcoming, however, I can easily see a maintainer deciding to drop the nonworking init script. >> At that point, unless a means of producing init scripts from unit >> files (which, last I heard, had been judged impossible) has been >> found, the amount of work required to continue to run sysvinit >> would be far more than the terminology of "changing the default" >> implies. > > I don't agree. We currently, at this point, have 100% full support > for sysv-rc LSB-header scripts. I don't see it going away that fast. I was explicitly referring to the point in the future when maintainers do stop providing traditional init scripts. This likely won't happen that fast, no, but I do think it's likely that it will happen - whether days after the jessie release or decades, or more likely something in between. My point, insofar as I had one, was more about what terminology is appropriate to use in discussing this than anything else. (I don't think I see anything to disagree with in the rest of what you said.) - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTOEI4AAoJEASpNY00KDJrr7QP/39Qf0IUZbTlQ7V7+AM8GXQd +mrTK9UPF8zxr0CnLZb5rcP796S37lw6fIp9sbpjnOXJHXvBz+jDbI/ACq1jb7ri dSLMpoGyhS6H9662rlwD3WAuUgoeObp0Zyg+IgQsNXRxGgXWxOk5U2LMaEhdUMA0 OYeyGrFTstKoivT9u8mUYcyUbKpCn7Qgwao9DNaO35zvLgHdRsfD5JbCKArQOtWo cxejI4rDGnbfY29mei/Egb090ZGdLp+0JWfji9lDF25xGBBlV3AuLfM+3Xf32Tql W39b9BWjSD4EeL3hjMj3p+RpxOPiFGC9j9brlUgzN6ch+5H+fMtEdjvANBH0/A5d iBYZzAdf5OY8s+4+Ryd/Vhghj2RVg0er8ssTdpL9f2hwHfNdWaotTbSZyKvVjuHA ihj3J7oii0y7daNrpcmEvi32fhSopLnwzu1v2RCpeZWcQOWOjeKWxsQmH/0R4PSg SwP3PCp/6C/GVOnAYz8o0mB68tCw/eBjkq2buwqKotDS3S3B75C1e67VcYOxwW29 dvhgEsPJlXgUXKRmyCa2BqTvvtIz/9ojF/bH1eRzQ8a4fNPQUZ9tgadFlMZzMth5 SAGweaCoVaARGiphOUORgyoSBmM27HCQ77QgxVddi1VyqRWeaojzCOAR2ej1sxRX PRefLzcSICn/dMMlbFgm =DM69 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53384238.3060...@fastmail.fm
