El Fri, 2 de May 2014 a las 3:01 PM, Ian Jackson
<ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> escribió:
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC
vote on init systems"):
Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes:
> An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog
entry to
> my attention:
> tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=low
> * Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead
now.
> Since various members of the Technical Committee argued that
choosing a
> default would not prevent Debian from supporting other init
systems, I
> would like to hear from those members how they think this should
be
> addressed.
Well, one, in the abstract this seems like a bad idea. I certainly
don't
intend to remove upstart support in my packages, any more than I
would reintroduce a bunch of PATH_MAX expressions and intentionally
drop Hurd support.
The removed change is presumably what was added here:
tftp-hpa (5.2-9) experimental; urgency=low
* Adding upstart exit codes in initscript.
There we go! As somebody who likes Upstart, _this is an ugly hack_. It
is mandated by Debian policy [0], as most of you may know, though.
Perhaps the simplest solution to the immediate problem is to perform
the actions suggested by Dimitri Ledkov in BTS #712763 [1]. That said,
there is obviously a bigger question here for the TC to address.
[0]
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-alternateinit
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=712763
Best regards,
--
Cameron Norman
