Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 01:44:09PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:33 PM Kurt Roeckx  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:49:47PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Please consider the above version, and all future variants that
> > contain
> > > > > nothing
> > > > > but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
> > > > > changes.)
> > > >
> > > > I was unable to verify your signature.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Trying again. If this doesn't work, I'll send as an attachment. (I didn't
> > > change my text, even though there have been some changes to the wording
> > of
> > > the ammendment.)
> >
> > I still get:
> > *BAD* signature from: Brian Gupta 
> >  aka: Brian Gupta 
> >  aka: Brian Gupta 
> >
> >
> > Kurt
> >
> 
> Alright, thanks. Please try the attached. If it's still not working I'll
> have to take some time to debug.

That was good.


Kurt

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Dmitry Bogatov]

[2019-11-21 13:47] Ian Jackson 
> Dmitry Bogatov writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> > Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
> > versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
> > change meaning.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I think your option looks finalised to me.  Do you want more time for
> people to consider it?
>
> If you feel you are now content then it would be useful to say so.
> If you feel you need more time then please do say so clearly.

I think my draft is finished, and I am content with it. No extra time
is needed.

Thank you for all feedback provided.
-- 
Note, that I send and fetch email in batch, once in a few days.
Please, mention in body of your reply when you add or remove recepients.

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

Dmitry Bogatov proposed the following amendment:

> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
> continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST work with
> pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work exclusively
> with systemd and no support for running without systemd is available.
> 
> Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
> exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
> and/or will not accept, an init script.

Seconded.

   Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Brian Gupta]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:33 PM Kurt Roeckx  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:49:47PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx  wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please consider the above version, and all future variants that
> contain
> > > > nothing
> > > > but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
> > > > changes.)
> > >
> > > I was unable to verify your signature.
> > >
> >
> > Trying again. If this doesn't work, I'll send as an attachment. (I didn't
> > change my text, even though there have been some changes to the wording
> of
> > the ammendment.)
>
> I still get:
> *BAD* signature from: Brian Gupta 
>  aka: Brian Gupta 
>  aka: Brian Gupta 
>
>
> Kurt
>

Alright, thanks. Please try the attached. If it's still not working I'll
have to take some time to debug.


signed-second.asc
Description: Binary data

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:49:47PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > >
> > > Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
> > > nothing
> > > but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
> > > changes.)
> >
> > I was unable to verify your signature.
> >
> 
> Trying again. If this doesn't work, I'll send as an attachment. (I didn't
> change my text, even though there have been some changes to the wording of
> the ammendment.)

I still get:
*BAD* signature from: Brian Gupta 
 aka: Brian Gupta 
 aka: Brian Gupta 


Kurt

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Brian Gupta]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kurt Roeckx  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> >
> > Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
> > nothing
> > but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
> > changes.)
>
> I was unable to verify your signature.
>

Trying again. If this doesn't work, I'll send as an attachment. (I didn't
change my text, even though there have been some changes to the wording of
the ammendment.)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
systemd is available.

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to
work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.

- ---

Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
nothing
but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
changes.)

e.g. - Maybe change "upstream do not provide" to "upstream does not provide"
   (I'm considering upstream a singular noun.)

Cheers,
Brian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=4xRL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:45:21AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx  writes:
> 
> Kurt> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>     >> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"): > I've
> >> currently put the title to "Packages should support >
> >> non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
> >> 
> >> Dmitry titled his posting "Init Diversity" which I think is
> >> appropriate.
> 
> Kurt> We already have an "Afferm Init Diversity" ...
> 
> I'm working on a new title for hartmans1; I'm hoping Ian or someone else
> will work with me to do that.

I've currently put them as:
Choice 1: Init deversity is Important and NMUable
Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
Choice 3: Focus on systemd for init system and other facilities
Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
Choice 5: Init diversity is Required

That should be visible on the website now, together with all other
changes I did today.


Kurt

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Sam Hartman]

>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx  writes:

Kurt> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
    >> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"): > I've
>> currently put the title to "Packages should support >
>> non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
>> 
>> Dmitry titled his posting "Init Diversity" which I think is
>> appropriate.

Kurt> We already have an "Afferm Init Diversity" ...

I'm working on a new title for hartmans1; I'm hoping Ian or someone else
will work with me to do that.


My preference would be
Dmitry's option would be
"Init Diversity is Required"

and
hartmans1 would be "init Deversity is Important  and NMUable but not
Serious"

In my mind that's the big difference between Dmitry's option and
hartmans1, but I'm still working to understand Ian's point of view.
(Well, that an hartmans1 is longer, but I'm not sure it says much more
than Dmitry's  option with a should instead of a must).

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Ian Jackson]

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> > > I've currently put the title to "Packages should support
> > > non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
> > 
> > Dmitry titled his posting "Init Diversity" which I think is
> > appropriate.
> 
> We already have an "Afferm Init Diversity" ...

Yes, we do.  I didn't realise that there was a uniqueness constraint,
let alone that it would be on a first-come first-served basis...

Hopefully the thread about Sam's option will either change its title
or cause it to be withdrawn.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:39:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> > I've currently put the title to "Packages should support
> > non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.
> 
> Dmitry titled his posting "Init Diversity" which I think is
> appropriate.

We already have an "Afferm Init Diversity" ...


Kurt

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Ian Jackson]

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> I've currently put the title to "Packages should support
> non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.

Dmitry titled his posting "Init Diversity" which I think is
appropriate.

Ian.

-- 
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 01:08:08PM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> 
> Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
> versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
> change meaning.
> 
> Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
> versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
> change meaning.
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
> continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST work with
> pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work exclusively
> with systemd and no support for running without systemd is available.
> 
> Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
> exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
> and/or will not accept, an init script.

I counted enough seconds, but didn't have time to properly write
them down yet. But I've pushed my current version.

I've currently put the title to "Packages should support
non-systemd". Suggestions welcome.


Kurt

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:10:13PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
> 
> Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
> nothing
> but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
> changes.)

I was unable to verify your signature.

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Ian Jackson]

Dmitry Bogatov writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
> versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
> change meaning.

Thanks.

I think your option looks finalised to me.  Do you want more time for
people to consider it ?

As you know there are various options available to the DPL, and to
individual Members, to affect the timetable here.  Exactly what they
are is not entirely clear.

If you feel you are now content then it would be useful to say so.

If you feel you need more time then please do say so clearly.


Thanks,
Ian.

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Dmitry Bogatov]

Here I formally propose update of my draft and withdraw all previous
versions. This version contains only grammatical fixes and does not
change meaning.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST work with
pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work exclusively
with systemd and no support for running without systemd is available.

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
and/or will not accept, an init script.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=n6EG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[2019-11-21 11:38] Matthew Vernon 
> Since the word-wrapping has changed, here is a diff -w (minus the new
> line-wrapping) so you can easily see the changes I actually made:
> [...]

Thanks. The diff was very helpful.
-- 
Note, that I send and fetch email in batch, once in a few days.
Please, mention in body of your reply when you add or remove recepients.

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Kyle Robbertze]

Hi,

On 2019/11/21 02:11, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> Here I formally propose new version of my draft, and withdraw all
> previous versions of it.
>
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
> with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
> exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
> systemd is available.
> 
> Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to
> work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
> provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.
>

I second this proposal.

Cheers

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Kyle Robbertze
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Debian Developer
⠈⠳⣄ https://wiki.debian.org/KyleRobbertze



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Jonathan Carter]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 2019/11/21 13:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Those aren't the grammar fixes I would be thinking of.  I expect
> we will sort those things out :-).
>
> In the meantime, I also second this proposal.

Notwithstanding some grammar/language issues already mentioned (and
perhaps s/to be value/to be of value), I also second this.

- -Jonathan

- -- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEExyA8CpIGcL+U8AuxsB0acqyNyaEFAl3Wd0cACgkQsB0acqyN
yaF8lBAAnnJLAGS8SGzcoIcrWw34LJk0b93329byJoT7jruIMYJDS8gW15dK/x6d
sswqss2VxXnDb19Xn2S0Ssfn6lRL1cbJCcg4k6sORXeSgald/SjBIgONkHGRKgdT
fAa8d3prh2LMEs6lt4ye+l99QIxCaQkqZlgR9WnJIQq2sJbT1h5Z1yPwRPtNvjAD
+htAYzChp2qjEAtAwVapkof60hx7b9LtRgoA4LiVVjy3gtuHGGODnLgpLkarxAf4
Nzt74soyQBf8LgCfA056D5yxheODV1lb7u9Tz6OLncgXpiOaU2x7Nv4N5gnSRskW
NaBw7C3GmkQVK7DJJ9mkWsk0DWAIDKwXlSZsrufoTvRBjvHTCvxwd5Mtr4Lmbxx2
hze9gnwteYTNXUdSKrhacdxSGKyfPWLmRHe3q/xhummQ+ixrGPtm0vTg7Wtu5AZ/
zjLtvMMdwboW0pTXh4KlmxaQMg8Fjo2avyyj4RHcdEv1kNQcQGFS1+VkL8/gRFJ5
/LxFK8YBFNFRO6UWN6MRDa0mIJTxwtSCZkAczozCQSq/50Nn7SBGrdFztW86poU4
bvlZ/shfybu7sD+NWKjsupB3dqGfUYKNoV+H12qrL7nzU2BWuAAjUreDTviBcsAY
0bmSmiKCVW1oMOY4T2/3RZ5IhaPv+gffPfIsW7KDn0SqKi7ZGMc=
=fE5u
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Matthew Vernon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Dmitry Bogatov  writes:

> Here I formally propose new version of my draft, and withdraw all
> previous versions of it.
>
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
> with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
> exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
> systemd is available.
>
> Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to
> work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
> provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.

I second this proposal.

I further propose this amendment to it:

- ---begin
Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than systemd
continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST work with
pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
exclusively with systemd and no support for running without systemd is
available.

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
and/or will not accept, an init script.
- ---end

Since the word-wrapping has changed, here is a diff -w (minus the new
line-wrapping) so you can easily see the changes I actually made:

2c2
< systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
- ---
> systemd continues to be of value to the project. Every package MUST
> work
8c8
< work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
- ---
> work exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not

It is my intent that this is merely a tidying up of the language, not a
change to the substance of your proposal.

Regards,

Matthew

- -- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.9 
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=6TeW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Ian Jackson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Brian Gupta writes ("Re: Proposal: Init Diversity"):
[ quoting Dmitry ]
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
> with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
> exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
> systemd is available.
> 
> Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to
> work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
> provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.
> 
> - ---
> 
> Please consider the above version, and all future variants that
> contain nothing but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As
> opposed to meaning changes.)
> 
> e.g. - Maybe change "upstream do not provide" to "upstream does not provide"
>(I'm considering upstream a singular noun.)

Those aren't the grammar fixes I would be thinking of.  I expect we
will sort those things out :-).

In the meantime, I also second this proposal.

My understanding of the process is that seconders do not have to
approve further changes.  Instead, if there is a change we do not like
we can (and must) say that we object.  But for the avoidance of doubt,
I also agree with Brian Gupta's comments about wording changes.

Thanks,
Ian.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQFUBAEBCAA+FiEEVZrkbC1rbTJl58uh4+M5I0i1DTkFAl3Wc44gHGlqYWNrc29u
QGNoaWFyay5ncmVlbmVuZC5vcmcudWsACgkQ4+M5I0i1DTnD+wgAv5qjHL8Bbkz3
syEe7MbE5gWsSA5gcXYYue2UCmKVW+MiavGjC1dFg+6FF7JDdD6BypFSLybKhVtJ
SuSaXlZhb+MG6a0zoYr101CMLr9si3KT2rTce8JRC6BXw91W2hwN9TRUsT+FyU3S
IBdp9vOUf1igaX3ftBPvnPjtb7G2ipLhndpnzwACy2KS2WT7L2EHNNMv+Tgz6R79
7AFJepV7SUrHlN2ILlNgwEaD0tGc5L7roOqPOP6atsA4YWtvU5ocfnjp2ymFRDFq
NirsgkQRSOVqQJukBBVMHnxYFZdjEQVys3uMpVHdj0qdD3L/9nAvbvDf0TcxZ+AT
YH03VcCJqg==
=1/ZV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Brian Gupta]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 7:11 PM Dmitry Bogatov  wrote:

>
> Here I formally propose new version of my draft, and withdraw all
> previous versions of it.
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
> with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
> exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
> systemd is available.
>
> Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to
> work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
> provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhnHVzDbtdH7ktKj4SBLY3qgmEeYFAl3V0u8ACgkQSBLY3qgm
> EeaOyA/8Cda8C+28KkOyby51V6vdThxuoK15qM/T6kBDwpvSHXxirlfeAXX+kBO9
> u6ktSDgbtzWzwTdbFWET+dc7LLhERMiJlTRUx8zfUmT0U9pFtxveF/xUsQscXyDK
> wKOJh4jC+9Dl9HhK2B0C8JIhRSFhZq4iB9OaSUXeaBepZCyjk8X/M890Zone4P0Q
> Dfs8vpEPn06QdknUWjYaIWd/5TLrny5GP26e8p7MdGkEf5DGAvsOQmUZn5mni/g2
> Y2KRmZWL1+UnGpkTjCYXyQOS2+X3hmoUO/yMfcKDTdEebV5Q80Z2JTC1vQChGQ5k
> aOQaB4H88EqzZ5QWECrw/309TSqmzSKBExwoFHsVZ12F9kOE0TxWIJT52NwtwJzh
> fM9AJCXVcKX0Y9Pt6O2QmzbxhWbmL0hp9dnYL0o6n2/4hu04+PiMTNCOMeZrxBVN
> gQgpC6hBoQPQoMHrmYITSqA7jrPCWzaPaMFSfk1aITwYtdSKnjE70P5z0i0MZL31
> JMLAabUpAajU6jLxGA52svaSBYm67I4kka10MWuyrOoPqMSxRipF+ir1U8H0M/80
> 9wRjXiraw5j2/VrqBK2W/n43DvlZB0y3/XCgtXvkyhG+fE65NOaH/UKrn6covcZW
> DB3NY8zifq2GzYlGDU5ZC5FLm2JfWzkWqmtz/CHUXWQqzA3F1Ro=
> =p2r/
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
systemd is available.

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to
work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.

- ---

Please consider the above version, and all future variants that contain
nothing
but grammar/wording changes, seconded by me. (As opposed to meaning
changes.)

e.g. - Maybe change "upstream do not provide" to "upstream does not provide"
   (I'm considering upstream a singular noun.)

Cheers,
Brian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=2ZEK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


> [2019-11-20 12:40] Ian Jackson 
> > Dmitry replied that this was not his intent, and explained his intent
> > to me.  He said he would welcome a proposed amendment.  I don't have
> > permission to quote his email, but I think I can capture his intent.
>
> FWIW, you have my permission to quote GR-related mails as needed. We are
> on tight schedule.
>
> > For now, I propose the following amendment:
> > [...]
>
> Thank you, Ian. I agree with your wording. Incorporated and formally
> proposed.
>
> > I think the effect of this is:
> >
> >  * For software that merely needs an init script writing, an init
> >script MUST be provided (by the Debian maintainer, if necessary).
> >
> >  * For software that needs other patches writing, it is up to the
> >community to write patches for non-systemd support.  The maintainer
> >does not need to write them but MUST accept them if they are
> >provided, because then "support for running with systemd is
> >available".
> >
> >  * Software that is inextricably tied to systemd is permitted,
> >even though it only works with systemd as pid 1.
>
> This. I hope updated wording can't be read other way.
> --
> Note, that I send and fetch email in batch, once in a few days.
> Please, mention in body of your reply when you add or remove recepients.
>

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Dmitry Bogatov]

Here I formally propose new version of my draft, and withdraw all
previous versions of it.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
systemd is available.

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to
work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=p2r/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[2019-11-20 12:40] Ian Jackson 
> Dmitry replied that this was not his intent, and explained his intent
> to me.  He said he would welcome a proposed amendment.  I don't have
> permission to quote his email, but I think I can capture his intent.

FWIW, you have my permission to quote GR-related mails as needed. We are
on tight schedule.

> For now, I propose the following amendment:
> [...]

Thank you, Ian. I agree with your wording. Incorporated and formally
proposed.

> I think the effect of this is:
>
>  * For software that merely needs an init script writing, an init
>script MUST be provided (by the Debian maintainer, if necessary).
>
>  * For software that needs other patches writing, it is up to the
>community to write patches for non-systemd support.  The maintainer
>does not need to write them but MUST accept them if they are
>provided, because then "support for running with systemd is
>available".
>
>  * Software that is inextricably tied to systemd is permitted,
>even though it only works with systemd as pid 1.

This. I hope updated wording can't be read other way.
-- 
Note, that I send and fetch email in batch, once in a few days.
Please, mention in body of your reply when you add or remove recepients.


pgp9oGbwilrPy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Brian Gupta]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 7:41 AM Ian Jackson 
wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> (Kurt, you can skip to "FAO KURT".)
>
> Dmitry Bogatov writes ("Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> > Here I formally propose following option, withdrawing any previous
> > versions.
> ...
> >   Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> >   systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
> >   with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
> >   exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
> >   systemd is available.
> >
> >   Software that uses systemd features non-conditionally should be
> >   considered as designed to work exclusively with systemd, but
> >   software that does just do not provide init.d should not.  In
> >   case of doubt, explicit statement of upstream is definitive.
>
> I have been having an email discussion with Dmitry about this.  I find
> this final paragraph unsatisfactory because it seems like it could
> contradict the first part.  As I wrote to Dmitry:
>
>   So, for example, suppose I find a daemon that unconditionally
>   expects the systemd daemon startup protocol.  I write a patch to
>   make it able to work differently, with perhaps a command line option
>   or something.  I submit it upstream, who say "no we are not
>   interested, this is designed to work exclusively with systemd".  Am
>   I now to give up ?  Debian need not take my patch.
>
> Dmitry replied that this was not his intent, and explained his intent
> to me.  He said he would welcome a proposed amendment.  I don't have
> permission to quote his email, but I think I can capture his intent.
>
> For now, I propose the following amendment: <=== FAO KURT
>
>   Delete the 2nd paragraph of Dmitry's proposal and replace with:
>
> Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to
> work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
> provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.
>
> I think the effect of this is:
>
>  * For software that merely needs an init script writing, an init
>script MUST be provided (by the Debian maintainer, if necessary).
>
>  * For software that needs other patches writing, it is up to the
>community to write patches for non-systemd support.  The maintainer
>does not need to write them but MUST accept them if they are
>provided, because then "support for running with systemd is
>available".
>
>  * Software that is inextricably tied to systemd is permitted,
>even though it only works with systemd as pid 1.
>
> Dmitry's wording is less specific than mine about what happens if
> non-systemd support patches are themselves RC-buggy but I think the
> effect is the same.  It would be unreasonable to say that "support for
> running without system is available" if the "support" is RC-buggy.
>
> I would appreciate it if others here would comment on my wording and
> maybe help improve it.  Dmitry's email latency means that he won't be
> able to participate in the drafting as fully as ideal, so I would like
> to make sure that he is offered the best possible wording.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to hijack Dmitry's
> authority over his text.  Please do not second my amendment.  I am
> hoping Dmitry will accept it (or some other similar improvement).  If
> Dmitry does not accept it I will withdraw it.
>

For the record, I plan to second Dmitriy's amendment once he has finalized
it..

-Brian
-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
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=sx3I
-END PGP MESSAGE-


> Ian.
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> iQFUBAEBCAA+FiEEVZrkbC1rbTJl58uh4+M5I0i1DTkFAl3VNC8gHGlqYWNrc29u
> QGNoaWFyay5ncmVlbmVuZC5vcmcudWsACgkQ4+M5I0i1DTn3zAf/fy8Kdp1pWDmh
> vQD9cH+bAQpBrsUtzk/vhEdMD+I5D3X6XatxgTgJHQhbdhKXBFSKAEzWoqhAJvTy
> e+XoPQN+ftzMlg796YVioGiKntD8iw0gb693mDtrx80WcDGM6IUhe4WtDR4L9E2R
> 1vEU3qpON+W9GmnkE2gMINs8h1fpsIwFWiaGyGtGInoSraHtwZVjME7Sn8QXbhdr
> 6w4J01y52a2e+GQbCYCjAq7zDV5UD/QbKCrJHn5+jQQh0tH4g7+IN6uZc3UXP+3d
> 

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Ian Jackson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

(Kurt, you can skip to "FAO KURT".)

Dmitry Bogatov writes ("Proposal: Init Diversity"):
> Here I formally propose following option, withdrawing any previous
> versions.
...
>   Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
>   systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
>   with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
>   exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
>   systemd is available.
> 
>   Software that uses systemd features non-conditionally should be
>   considered as designed to work exclusively with systemd, but
>   software that does just do not provide init.d should not.  In
>   case of doubt, explicit statement of upstream is definitive.

I have been having an email discussion with Dmitry about this.  I find
this final paragraph unsatisfactory because it seems like it could
contradict the first part.  As I wrote to Dmitry:

  So, for example, suppose I find a daemon that unconditionally
  expects the systemd daemon startup protocol.  I write a patch to
  make it able to work differently, with perhaps a command line option
  or something.  I submit it upstream, who say "no we are not
  interested, this is designed to work exclusively with systemd".  Am
  I now to give up ?  Debian need not take my patch.

Dmitry replied that this was not his intent, and explained his intent
to me.  He said he would welcome a proposed amendment.  I don't have
permission to quote his email, but I think I can capture his intent.

For now, I propose the following amendment: <=== FAO KURT

  Delete the 2nd paragraph of Dmitry's proposal and replace with:

Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to
work exclusively with systemd, merely because upstream do not
provide, and/or will not accept, an init script.

I think the effect of this is:

 * For software that merely needs an init script writing, an init
   script MUST be provided (by the Debian maintainer, if necessary).

 * For software that needs other patches writing, it is up to the
   community to write patches for non-systemd support.  The maintainer
   does not need to write them but MUST accept them if they are
   provided, because then "support for running with systemd is
   available".

 * Software that is inextricably tied to systemd is permitted,
   even though it only works with systemd as pid 1.

Dmitry's wording is less specific than mine about what happens if
non-systemd support patches are themselves RC-buggy but I think the
effect is the same.  It would be unreasonable to say that "support for
running without system is available" if the "support" is RC-buggy.

I would appreciate it if others here would comment on my wording and
maybe help improve it.  Dmitry's email latency means that he won't be
able to participate in the drafting as fully as ideal, so I would like
to make sure that he is offered the best possible wording.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to hijack Dmitry's
authority over his text.  Please do not second my amendment.  I am
hoping Dmitry will accept it (or some other similar improvement).  If
Dmitry does not accept it I will withdraw it.

Ian.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQFUBAEBCAA+FiEEVZrkbC1rbTJl58uh4+M5I0i1DTkFAl3VNC8gHGlqYWNrc29u
QGNoaWFyay5ncmVlbmVuZC5vcmcudWsACgkQ4+M5I0i1DTn3zAf/fy8Kdp1pWDmh
vQD9cH+bAQpBrsUtzk/vhEdMD+I5D3X6XatxgTgJHQhbdhKXBFSKAEzWoqhAJvTy
e+XoPQN+ftzMlg796YVioGiKntD8iw0gb693mDtrx80WcDGM6IUhe4WtDR4L9E2R
1vEU3qpON+W9GmnkE2gMINs8h1fpsIwFWiaGyGtGInoSraHtwZVjME7Sn8QXbhdr
6w4J01y52a2e+GQbCYCjAq7zDV5UD/QbKCrJHn5+jQQh0tH4g7+IN6uZc3UXP+3d
nl+T1nfzAMKS2GtvlgeSJHVFBG96Q/q41nDXSr4Re90O5qgeWo3CF7nntee08GEP
Kj+YB8DPuw==
=fWly
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Dmitry Bogatov]

[2019-11-17 19:56] Kyle Robbertze 
> > Here I formally propose following option, withdrawing any previous
> > versions.
> >
> > Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
> > systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
> > with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
> > exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
> > systemd is available.
> > 
> > Software that uses systemd features non-conditionally should be
> > considered as designed to work exclusively with systemd, but
> > software that does just do not provide init.d should not.  In
>
> I am failing to parse this line. Are you saying that software that
> provides a systemd unit file, but no init.d script, and does not use any
> systemd features unconditionally should be considered as not having
> exclusive systemd support?

Yes.

Example of such situation is laminar[^1] Upstream provides systemd unit
file and no init.d script.

The software itself is totally init-agnostic: it is configured by
several environment variables and listens on two sockets.  This software
is /not/ to be considered "designed for systemd only".

 [^1]: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/laminar
-- 
Note, that I send and fetch email in batch, once in a few days.
Please, mention in body of your reply when you add or remove recepients.

Re: Proposal: Init Diversity

[Kyle Robbertze]

Hi,

On 2019/11/17 18:05, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> Here I formally propose following option, withdrawing any previous
> versions.
>
>   Being able to run Debian systems with init systems other than
>   systemd continues to be value for the project. Package MUST work
>   with pid1 != systemd, unless it was designed by upstream to work
>   exclusively with systemd and no support for running without
>   systemd is available.
> 
>   Software that uses systemd features non-conditionally should be
>   considered as designed to work exclusively with systemd, but
>   software that does just do not provide init.d should not.  In

I am failing to parse this line. Are you saying that software that
provides a systemd unit file, but no init.d script, and does not use any
systemd features unconditionally should be considered as not having
exclusive systemd support?

>   case of doubt, explicit statement of upstream is definitive.