>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:
Russ> Ah, hm, yes, that's a good point that I didn't notice when copying
that
Russ> Policy recommendation over from the recommendations on init scripts.
Russ> The obvious concern here is that multiple packages could use the same
Russ> service name, and making the service name match the package name
reduces
Russ> that risk considerably. But I think I agree that staying consistent
with
Russ> upstream is more important than adopting that policy in a strong
sense.
Russ> Do you have a suggestion for alternative wording? I think we still
need
Russ> to say something about matching the name of the init script if any,
and if
Russ> upstream doesn't provide a service unit, it seems reasonable to use
the
Russ> name of the package (but maybe that should be encouraged rather than
Russ> recommended?).
I think should -> encouraged would go a lot of the way.
Especially with a sentence along the lines of
"Often, preserving an upstream's choice of service unit name is more
important than having a service unit match a package's name."
