>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
Russ> Ah, hm, yes, that's a good point that I didn't notice when copying that Russ> Policy recommendation over from the recommendations on init scripts. Russ> The obvious concern here is that multiple packages could use the same Russ> service name, and making the service name match the package name reduces Russ> that risk considerably. But I think I agree that staying consistent with Russ> upstream is more important than adopting that policy in a strong sense. Russ> Do you have a suggestion for alternative wording? I think we still need Russ> to say something about matching the name of the init script if any, and if Russ> upstream doesn't provide a service unit, it seems reasonable to use the Russ> name of the package (but maybe that should be encouraged rather than Russ> recommended?). I think should -> encouraged would go a lot of the way. Especially with a sentence along the lines of "Often, preserving an upstream's choice of service unit name is more important than having a service unit match a package's name."