Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:40:58 +0100
Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
> On 10/29/19 11:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > of clear project guidance, no one is clearly empowered to prevent
> > it from bitrotting.
What is wrong with bitrotting if nobody cares about - in case nobody
cares about it's the logical consequence. And please don't even try to
enforce this care.
> My understanding is that the current guidance is that doing init
> script isn't mandatory. What is mandatory, is to ACK init scripts /
> patches when contributed (through the BTS).
I read it the same way - and also a logical consequece: if these
patches lead to bugs, the maintainer should not be forced to fix the
mess. I for myself would just remove buggy things that nobody care in a
certain amount of time.
> I think that's fair enough for everyone, and I don't see why we need
> to change anything to this rule.
Dito
> Make what deferred decision? That we want to actively dismiss patches
> adding init script support? This IMO would just destroy any work
> attempted in the non-linux ports, or anyone willing to add support
> for a new init system. I don't think that's fair for these. Voting
> them out would not feel right.
See it different: if the provided scripts/patches are good, why not
take and keep them - systemd users are not hurt. If the scripts/patches
don't work - ignore the upcoming bugs and downgrade everything about to
whishlist - or if interested in: Fix the bugs. Default will work and
good. And i don't want to provoke, i see it exactly this way, if people
spend time one something, why blocking or discourage if it do no harm.
I even merge patches for kfreebsd and the hurd upstream - but i would
never active work on it.
> As much as I understand, we never wrote or decided we would. We just
> need to accept patches to add or fix sysv-rc scripts. What makes you
> think sysv-rc scripts are mandatory?
Good question - if these things are not mandatory nothing needs to
change.
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>
--
Alf Gaida
BDBF C688 EFAD BA89 5A9F 464B CD28 0A0B 4D72 827C
Reply to: