Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> writes: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 03:15:24PM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
>> To avoid breakage of existing systems and facilitate ongoing support >> for non-systemd inits, I would like to establish a consensus for >> - stating that initscripts remain useful. >> - requiring a coordinated transition of any initscript a maintainer >> wishes to drop to the orphan-sysvinit-scripts package and providing >> the relevant copyright information. > Sorry no. Please add a conversion layer that adopts service and maybe > other systemd units to initrc if you care about it. This is what > systemd does to adopt existing init scripts, so you can do the opposite. I don't think it's useful to tell people who are working on sysvinit support how best to do that work. We decided to not require support in packages and put the maintenance burden on the sysvinit maintainers. It feels rude to me to do that and then try to second-guess how they choose to do that. The orphan-sysvinit-scripts approach fully abides by the result of GR 2019-002. They're doing what the project asked for even though it's a lot of work for them, and they're volunteering to let maintainers transfer the support they don't want to maintain to them. That's exactly what we asked for in the GR, and we should respect it. > And it can detect easily if no init script exists for a given unit, so > no coordination necessary. Replaces and Conflicts are required at the very least so that upgrades work properly, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't provide instructions to package maintainers to do that smoothly, rather than having the init script disappear and then reappear and break users who are using unstable. It's not that difficult to slow down a little bit and follow a process. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
