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