Hi, On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:44:55AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For example, it raises a (probably valid) concern about > > "non-init-related [declarative] systemd facilities", but: > > 1/ it mixes it with an argument that declarative facilities are better. > > Well, maybe I can agree with that. I'm not sure it's something > > the project needs to issue a statement on through a GR. > I have heard more than one person say that they are unhappy that the > current situation has been blocking specifically this kind of > progress. In my opinion, that question is the core of the argument we're having. Daemon startup is effectively solved on the technical side, and the only question remaining there is whether including an init script should remain mandatory or not. Non-init-related facilities are where I'd expect incompatibilities to arise, and it is a bit sad that there is only one amendment that effectively addresses this question -- because if amendment D doesn't win, this GR provides absolutely no guidance on what to do about packages that do not work properly or at all if systemd is not PID 1. At the same time, it is fairly obvious to me that a commercially backed project with full-time developers will move faster than the volunteer-driven alternatives, so I expect lots of these incompatibilities to pop up in a short time, and resolving them will take quite a while longer. Simon
