Bug#949690: debian-policy: "service unit should have the same name as the package" seems too strong
> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes: Sean> Encouragement is still normative, so if we're going to encourage it, Sean> it would be better to say /when/ it's encouraged and when it's not. I think it should be encouraged when there is not a good reason to do otherwise. I think the most common reason not to do otherwise (the only reason I can think of that is likely to be common) is to preserve upstream's service unit name.
Bug#949690: debian-policy: "service unit should have the same name as the package" seems too strong
Hello, On Fri 24 Jan 2020 at 10:47AM -05, Sam Hartman wrote: > 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." Encouragement is still normative, so if we're going to encourage it, it would be better to say /when/ it's encouraged and when it's not. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#949690: debian-policy: "service unit should have the same name as the package" seems too strong
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery 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."
