On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 12:18 PM Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, 2019-09-22 at 16:13 -0400, David Steele wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:10 PM Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> > > wrote: > > > The Policy Editors have decided that dropping the requirement to ship > > > init scripts is not something that can be decided by means of the Policy > > > Changes Process, at least for the time being. > > > > > > In proposing and reviewing wording to resolve this bug, then, we should > > > be careful not to weaken the requirement to ship init scripts. > > > Otherwise, in resolving this bug we would be changing the requirements > > > to ship init scripts by means of the Policy Changes Process. > > > > > > I'm suggesting this be kept in mind. It need not result in a wordier > > > change, and I certainly agree with you that we should assume good faith > > > on the part of package maintainers. > > > > > > > Candidate language attached. It adds "Also excepted are packages which > > require a > > feature of an alternate init system which is not available in SysV-Style > > init systems.". Thoughts? > > I don't think there is a way to get such changes through the policy > process as Sean said (I tried to document what I see as current > practice in #911165). Practically the project seems to have already > decided that this is fine, even for packages that don't require > systemd: > > +--- > | There are 1033 non-overridden instances of lintian detecting a > | service unit without an init.d script [7]. > +---[ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/09/msg00001.html ] > > Ansgar >
Regardless of the practicality, I'd like clarity on the policy. After reading #911165, I'd say I prefer it to this proposal. But something needs to be done about the current alternate init system support language.