Response to active removal of initscripts

[Martin Steigerwald]

Dear alternative init community!

Martin Steigerwald - 22.07.20, 20:12:51 CEST:
> Matthew Vernon - 22.07.20, 18:21:36 CEST:
> > On 08/07/2020 08:41, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > > Matthew Vernon - 08.07.20, 09:37:14 CEST:
> > >> 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)...
> > > 
> > > I did that more than a week ago already.
> > > 
> > > Got no reply, so I reminded him. He replied than, telling that he
> > > has read the message, meant to reread and reply to it, but then 
> > > there was something else… he promised to answer today.
> > 
> > Did you hear anything from Jonathan in the end?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> He cited part of the GR last year¹:
> 
> """
> The Debian project recognizes that systemd service units are the
> preferred configuration for describing how to start a daemon/service.
[…]
> I thought about writing something similar to the bug report, starting
> with "Dear Michael" and doing my best to keep friendly and
> constructive… but I have been postponing this. I have enough conflict
> in my life right now without that already. So if anyone else likes to
> step up for this, be my guest. I certainly do support that.

I now did, hoping for the best.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=964139#32

> [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002

Thanks,
-- 
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-init-diversity/attachments/20200728/4af440ee/attachment.sig>