Hi, On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 07:40:52PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> There's no need to do that. If a backported package is using such > features, then it just should depend on the correct version of systemd. > You may have seen that systemd 242 is already in buster-backports... Yes, that's one of the questions I have asked: is systemd a core system component that we want to provide a stable release for, or is it one of the peripheral packages that users can upgrade to a backported version if they need a new feature, or has Debian relaxed its standards to accomodate systemd? Regardless of whether Debian wants to have diverse init systems or standardize on one, we need to have a clear position on what kind of support users can expect for the stable release. If a significant fraction of users runs a backported systemd, can we provide security updates for them, or will we shunt these users onto a "rolling release" track, and if yes, who manages that track? These are all questions we never had to answer with sysvinit, because the interface was stable for decades. I can understand why systemd does not want that kind of "stability", but that means that we need a policy for dealing with the consequences of that decision. Simon
