Hi Russ, On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 18:29 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > As with Dmitry's proposal, I'm not seconding this because it's not my own > first choice, but I would vote this above further discussion and I'm > satisfied that it's clear about the Policy implications.
Do you think it is realistic/practical to require documentation for interfaces such as logind to be included into Policy (without references to external documents) before they are allowed to be used in Debian by any packages? (Can one require the same for, say, use of non-standard libc extensions?) What do you think should happen when logind gains a new feature (or "new systemd subfeatures of questionable value" as some would say)? That would seem to (re)trigger the requirement to incorporate logind into Policy (if agreement can be reached) and wait up to a year before using it... > > * Negative general comments about software and their communities, > > including both about systemd itself and about non-systemd init > > systems, are strongly deprecated. > > This sense of deprecated is (I think) en_UK, or at least it reads oddly to > this en_US reader. I'm mentally translating it as "discouraged," but I > wonder if something like "are not acceptable within the Debian Project" > might be closer to the meaning you're intending. Would calling sysvinit or subfeatures like elogind to be "of questionable value" still be acceptable? :) Ansgar
