>>>>> "Bart" == Bart Schouten <l...@xenhideout.nl> writes:
>> I agree on this too. To the extent it should be considered >> time-limited, it should be «until N releases after sysvinit is >> removed» or somesuch, if that happens. Bart> In legal terms, in law, it would be considered that the burden Bart> of proof lies with those who want to remove it. Bart> Asking the supporters of those scripts to prove that they Bart> still need them would be considered an unreasonable burden. I'm nervous of going too far down the path of legalisms. Asking those who need the scripts to prove (or even say) they still need them is not what we want. However if someone is having difficulty maintaining the scripts or they are broken, it is reasonable for them to ask for help, and if no one steps forward, eventually the scripts will become buggy enough that the normal severity bug of a package without an init script is better than the state of a package with a broken init script. Similarly, if the community of people who care about sysvinit is unwilling to spend the time keeping it working, eventually sysvinit as a whole will be unmaintained and buggy.