Hi Kurt, On 20.10.2014 21:33, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > So the question is going to be if this options overrides #746715 > or not. I didn't look into it yet, so I might be turning 1 or > more of the options into overrding the TC and put them under > 4.1.4.
I do not follow you on this argumentation. The amendment text does not
disagree with, or overrule, the resolution #746715 in any way. It does
not endorse maintainers to drop support for a particular init system.
Quite in contrary, it emphasizes to focus on the best user experience
("Debian package maintainers [shall] provide the best free software to
our users") which, of course, also includes users of non-default init
systems.
That being said, this amendment would also allow a "stronger coupling"
to a particular init system, when the packaged software requires it in
a "fundamental" way, at risk of "delivering broken, buggy, or otherwise
incomplete software packages" otherwise.
So in summary, this amendment let's people continue to use whatever init
system they prefer, including, but not limited to the project-wide
chosen default system, and it does in no way suggest to drop any
alternative init system support unless absolutely necessary without
shifting the burden of upstream's design decisions to the Debian package
maintainers.
That's - I think - a good default and affirms Debian's point of view
that the respective maintainers can judge best what's a good requirement
for their packages. Finally I encourage everyone to focus on the
connotation in Luca's amendment. It allows maintainers to tie their
software to a particular init system only as a last resort when
absolutely necessary - not by pure choice, or by laziness.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
