Hi, Thank you for your feedback!
2014-10-18 13:50 GMT+02:00 The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm>: > Imagine that the maintainer of package foo decides, as they are entitled > to do under this proposal, that 'foo requires upstart for proper > operation' (choosing upstart just as an example here), and adds a > dependency on a hypothetical set-upstart-as-PID-1 package. > > Imagine then that someone who is running happily with systemd as PID 1 > decides to install package foo. > > This would cause their system to be switched from systemd as PID 1 to > upstart as PID 1, comparably to what now happens when someone who is not > running with systemd as PID 1 installs a package which depends on > systemd-sysv. I consider out of scope for this proposal to discuss a method to prevent an accidental change of default init system, even though I'd welcome such a technical feature to be designed sooner than later. > Yet under this proposal, the package maintainers would be fully entitled > to do exactly the things which necessarily result in this problematic > scenario. I will emphasize a couple of sentences in my proposal: Debian packages *may* require a specific init system [...] [...] if their maintainers consider this a *requisite* [...] [...] *and* no patches or other derived works exist [...] [...] to support other init systems. I consider requiring a specific init system as a last resort when every possible technical solution failed, and nobody stepped in to provide alternative solutions not considered before. Note that I didn't use "should", but "may", as I don't consider this proposal a suggestion to avoid providing valid technical solutions to support other init systems, especially if this may turn to be a quite trivial exercise. Cheers, Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CADk7b0Mr3CVDchfCTQ9Md-F8KSUDXS7a+VrVdY74R=bhfyw...@mail.gmail.com
