Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: init system discussion status"): > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > And the other is that IMO the proposed prescription for non-Linux ports > > doesn't make sense for systemd. There is little prospect of systemd > > being "ported" to those systems. > > I'd prefer to leave it in. Upstream's opinions aside, systemd is free > software and if someone wants to try to port it (or, possibly more likely, > "port" it by writing something native that provides the same interfaces), > they can. Maybe upstream is right and it's untenable; maybe they're wrong > and it's not as hard as they think. I realize it's horribly unlikely for > jessie, but still, as a matter of principle, I'd rather encourage the same > software or at least the same interfaces across all of our ports.
Personally I think leaving this in makes the resolution look surreal and out of touch. > But, anyway, we can focus on the upstart position first and deal with that > later. OK. > This seems fine to me, at least for right now. I'm doing a bit of > additional research right now to be sure that I understand the > implications of this and may end up asking for any problems that anyone is > aware of with this approach, just to be sure we're not missing something. Right. I looked at the reverse-dependencies of sysvinit in sid and didn't see anything untoward. > > I would like to be clear that maintainers don't need to take patches > > that introduce embedded copies of sd_notify. > > Oh, okay. I had missed that aspect of things. I think it's fine to be > clear about that as long as we're not prohibiting via non-advice TC > decision using an embedded copy (which feels like bug severity inflation > to me). OK. But I will hold off editing 6C for this as we seem to be moving in a different direction. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org