Hi, I broadly agree with what you said.
Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > 2. Do nothing further before January 6th. It's still the holidays, and > subsequent steps are going to require some discussion, and I think it's > worth taking a breath. This, particularly. > My thought process here is that while the GR permits packages to start > using systemd facilities directly, doing that without somehow declaring > that requirement in package metadata seems likely to cause bugs and > upgrade issues, so we should try to provide some better facilities. I > think there's an obvious gap here where we need a mechanism to declare > a dependency on a system facility (as distinct from a package that may > be installed but not running) such as tmpfiles.d, sysusers.d, the > ability to rely on DynamicUser without creating a user for that purpose > in maintainer scripts, systemd D-Bus facilities, socket activation, or > so forth. This is a sound point; systemd provides an increasing range of facilities, and it'd be good to keep track of which of them are being used where and how. > As time goes on, we'll get a better feel for how much work folks will > be doing going forward on supporting other init systems, and thus on > how quickly we should move versus giving them time to determine how > they want to support equivalent functionality. I suspect such effort is going to be at a low ebb in the immediate aftermath of this GR, so this will need some care. Regards, Matthew -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org