Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > The above 'block' would be tantamount to an assertion that you have no > intention of accepting patches from maintainers of non-default init > systems to provide compatibility unless forced to do so by the TC;
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the proper solution may depend on the TC decision and the corresponding fallout to package naming and structure, and hence it's reasonable to wait for the decision and subsequent fallout (particularly since that's close) rather than doing work now that may not apply to the final state of the world? You had the same reaction to Tollef's desire to wait for the resolution before finding the right way of handling systemd-shim, and I have the same comment. I think it's reasonable, and human, to want there to be a bit less uncertainty and a bit more clarity before starting to do work around init system dependencies. It doesn't necessarily imply a long-term disagreement with the proposed solution; it can just mean that people are hitting overload right now on all the possible paths and want the probability space to collapse a bit before figuring out what they're doing. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wqheo9mc....@windlord.stanford.edu
