Don Armstrong wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require > > > a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is > > > tolerable. > > > > For instance, consider a gnome-session-systemd package which uses > > systemd user sessions, provided in parallel with a compatibility > > package that does not. Or, consider the systemd-shim package. As > > written, this clause would prohibit such alternative packages, even > > though *collectively* the packages satisfy this requirement. > > Using "software" instead of "packages" sidesteps this problem, I think, > since that avoids the technical details of how such compatibility is > implemented.
How confident are you that the entire technical committee and the community of people filing bugs in the future will share your interpretation of that statement in the resolution, versus the interpretation that would result in an automatic RC bug on *any* package that "Depends: systemd-sysv" (or logical equivalent), even if an alternative package exists? And to ask the reverse question: given your interpretation above, how averse are you to making some kind of clarification along the lines of what you said above official rather than unofficial? I'd hate to see people arguing over this ruling later if a one-sentence clarification could make it completely unambiguous. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
