> "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
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
> "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>
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:43:34PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Simon McVittie writes:
>
> > If a package has a single system service with a systemd service unit,
> > and the system service's name does not match the package's name, current
> > Policy implies that this is probably a (non-RC) bug.
Simon McVittie writes:
> If a package has a single system service with a systemd service unit,
> and the system service's name does not match the package's name, current
> Policy implies that this is probably a (non-RC) bug.
> I think that's too strong. In particular, because the name of the
[..]
Thanks for bringing that up, Simon.
I share your concern and agree with your conclusion.
As an example, I explicitly decided to keep the name
NetworkManager.service in the network-manager package.
I did create an alias/symlink network-manager.service and ship that in
the package, to
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.0.0
Severity: minor
X-Debbugs-Cc: syst...@packages.debian.org
If a package has a single system service with a systemd service unit,
and the system service's name does not match the package's name, current
Policy implies that this is probably a (non-RC) bug.
I
7 matches
Mail list logo
