Thibaut Paumard <thib...@debian.org> writes: > I think this is very ambiguous and my immediate interpretation is > probably not what the original proposer means. The two extreme > interpretations I see for "designed to work exclusively with systemd" > are:
> - my guess for the OP meaning: some piece of software that is directly > related to systemd, tries to enhance it and in the end should be part of it; > - my immediate interpretation: any piece of software where upstream > does not care for (or does not have the resources to support) non-systemd. > The first interpretation is very strong but difficult to phrase in a > less ambiguous manner. > The second interpretation is so very light that this option on the > ballot is effectively equivalent to "scrap everything, support only > systemd". As Policy editor, I would interpret "designed to work exclusively with systemd" as including any software that, upstream, had a hard dependency on a systemd feature. That includes obvious things like logind, but also daemons meant to only work with socket activation, any early-boot packages that expect systemd behavior and are only tested with systemd, or software that relies on systemd sandboxing and would be RC-buggy without it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
