Bug#838480: Next revision, suggestion accounted

[Dmitry Bogatov]

[2018-12-17 12:56] Michael Biebl <biebl at debian.org>
> Am 04.12.18 um 00:26 schrieb Dmitry Bogatov:
> > 
> > [2018-11-28 18:48] Dmitry Bogatov <KAction at debian.org>
> >> I am worried: freeze is coming, and nothing is happening. I am not going
> >> to miss another release.
> > 
> > Hereby I inform you, that I uploaded NMU into DELAYED/15. Feel free to
> > cancel it, providing rationale why it is not "reasonable".

> For the record, given Martin's latest review I'm not ok with this NMU
> and I would kindly ask you to cancel the upload until it has been
> figured why it is failing. I feel uncomfortable adding a package as a
> supported alternative in this state.

I politely refuse. Either you (I mean all of bin:init maintainers)
/actively/ take part in debugging issue you consider blocker, or you
step aside and let me deal with incoming stream of bugs.

I remind you, that you do not have veto right. The very fact, that
`init' is meta-package, not virtual package, is technical solution, not
instrument of power for bin:init maintainers.

> It's clear that you are unhappy with the situation, so am I.
> Maybe we should involve the CTTE and have them work out and define the
> criteria and interfaces an alternative /sbin/init needs to provide and
> what behaviour can be expected or not (and have an automated test suite
> which tests all this).

Sure. I will write draft summary of disagreement in a week or so into
this bug.

But until and unless CTTE overrules my decision, `runit-init' will be
installable without uninstalling essential packages, either as
pre-dependency of bin:init or as package, that provides `init'.