Response to active removal of initscripts

[Matthew Vernon]

Hi,

On 02/07/2020 16:49, Mark Hindley wrote:

[sorry for a slow response - I'm a bit variably around ATM]

> Today's upload of network-manager has had its (working AFAIK) init script
> removed. My bug[1] requesting its reinstatement has been downgraded to wishlist
> without comment.
> 
> What suggestions does anybody else have for how to procede with this?
> 
> I incidentally discovered that in March the same maintainer had also closed and
> archived (presumably to make it less obvious) without notification the
> network-manager[2] and udisks2[3] bugs requesting support for the logind virtual
> packages.
> 
> My feeling is that this marks a new level of anatagonism against anything that
> is not systemd. But I may be overreacting?

Yeah, the BTS didn't (AFAICS) mail me about this, and I'd opened #960780 
which got force-merged with the archived bug. I'd been meaning to email 
this list and wonder if we should offer NMUs for some of these fixes on 
a "you might not have effort to merge these, but we do" sort of basis.

The previous GR was disappointing, and some folk who are antagonistic to 
anything not-systemd do seem to be using it as an excuse to ditch 
support for alternative inits. This sort of action seems actively 
unhelpful, though.

I am inclined to drop Jonathan Carter (DPL) an email to see if he has 
thoughts. It ought to be possible to get on quietly with supporting 
alternative inits without people actively getting in the way (and the 
wording of the GR result should allow that)...

Regards,

Matthew