Sam Hartman <[email protected]> writes: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Richter <[email protected]> writes:
> Simon> Non-init-related facilities are where I'd expect > Simon> incompatibilities to arise, and it is a bit sad that there is > Simon> only one amendment that effectively addresses this question > Simon> -- because if amendment D doesn't win, this GR provides > Simon> absolutely no guidance on what to do about packages that do > Simon> not work properly or at all if systemd is not PID 1. > I actually think all of the options provide guidance on this. [...] Sam, I think you misunderstood Simon's concern. He's not looking for guidance for packages that don't work properly with sysvinit. He's looking for guidance for packages that don't work properly with *systemd* (the inverse of that problem). I think Sam's option three effectively addresses this (if supporting other init systems is not a priority, then such packages are buggy with Debian's only supported init system, which doesn't necessarily mean that they're RC-buggy but does mean that they're going to be relegated to a fairly niche place in the archive). The other options may not address this very concretely. My perception is that such packages are rare, and I don't see any reason why they would be RC-buggy in any circumstance (Debian has no problem packaging programs that only work in very special configurations), but there are some technical questions that I think the GR will leave mostly unanswered, such as how to declare a meaningful dependency to make it clear this is the case. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
