Hi, On 07/11/19 at 13:04 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives > > > The Debian project recognizes that systemd service units are the > preferred configuration for describing how to start a daemon/service. > However, Debian remains an environment where developers and users can > explore and develop alternate init systems and alternatives to systemd > features. Those interested in exploring such alternatives need to > provide the necessary development and packaging resources to do that > work. Technologies such as elogind that facilitate exploring > alternatives while running software that depends on some systemd > interfaces remain important to Debian. It is important that the > project support the efforts of developers working on such technologies > where there is overlap between these technologies and the rest of the > project, for example by reviewing patches and participating in > discussions in a timely manner. > > > Packages should include service units or init scripts to start daemons > and services. Packages may include support for alternate init > systems besides systemd and may include alternatives for any > systemd-specific interfaces they use. Maintainers use their normal > procedures for deciding which patches to include.
I find this paragraph a bit hard to parse. "Packages should include service units or init scripts to start daemons and services." My understanding is that we want packages to provide a way to start daemons and services. Should this be read as: Packages should include either service units or init scripts to start daemons and services [= it works on systemd]. When including service units, packages should also include init scripts [= the baseline solution]. Or is it expected that the "may" in this option stronger than the "may" in the last option, because of the preceding paragraph? Lucas
