On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:58:52AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> writes: > Wouter> Oh, right. Okay. I suppose that makes sense; the nbd-client > Wouter> init script hasn't been touched since I wrote the nbd-client > Wouter> systemd unit, and so I can't really guarantee that it will > Wouter> work very well anymore. > > Wouter> I guess I was misunderstanding what Sam was writing > Wouter> initially; I thought he just meant that "if you do early > Wouter> boot, then we don't care about other init systems", which > Wouter> seems like it would make the whole point moot. > > Wouter> Perhaps > Wouter> rather than that, the GR should say something like: > > Wouter> "Due to the higher level of complexity inherent to > Wouter> early-boot services, it is expected that the init scripts > Wouter> (or equivalent) for services initialized during early boot > Wouter> be maintained by the maintainers of the init system in > Wouter> question, rather than by the maintainers of the service's > Wouter> package" > > I like this sentence, and if we get significant support from those who > favor choice 1, I would accept that amendment. > Meanwhile, I think I can go as far as > > >Policy notes that early boot services like those started from > >/etc/rcS.d may be tied closely to the init system in use and thus may > >need to be handled differently for each init system > > well within the spirit of the current choice 1.
That is definitely clearer, yes. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
