On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Zbigniew was talking about a package that has a dependency on a
> *non*default init system.
Ah, OK. That's easily resolved with
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 init system the patch enables
interoperation with.
> And for that the first question is whether such a dependency on a
> *non*default init would be allowed at all.
I'm deliberately avoiding even wading into this question, because
delineating between packages whose design requires that they depend on a
specific init system, packages which depend on a particular init system
due to a lack of developer effort, and packages which depend on a
particular init system for no good reason at all is hard.
I'd much rather give some guidance (in the form of the above), and trust
maintainers to do the right thing. The CTTE and/or the project can
always intervene if necessary after the fact.
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
--
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/20140128204943.go2...@rzlab.ucr.edu
