On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:23:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > The former. So : > > > > Where feasible, software should interoperate with non-default init > > systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound > > patches to enable interoperation, even if it results in degraded > > operation while running under the non-default init. > > Maybe I'm dense... > > Scenario: Let's say that OpenRC is the new default init and in the > meanwhile, Gnome has gained a dependency on systemd. A patch to > support Upstart in Gnome is posted that partially breaks the > functionality under systemd. > > By your wording, maintainers are encouraged to accept the patch.
No. This was precisely the ambiguity which Neil (correctly) pointed out. Simply put, patches which reduced existing functionality while running under the default init (say, systemd), would not be technically sound. Instead, maintainers are encouraged to accept the patch even if it results in reduced functionality while running under the non-default init (say, upstart) in comparison to the default init (say, systemd). -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. I resign. -- Patrick McGoohan as Number 6 in "The Prisoner" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140128200819.gl2...@rzlab.ucr.edu
