Web lists-archives.com

Re: tinysshd dependency on systemd

>>>>> Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 09:57:45PM +0000, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

 >> I disagree; to the best of my knowledge, anyone can do the testing
 >> and suggest any fixes he or she deems necessary.  As such, having an
 >> issue recorded in the BTS is preferable to not having it recorded,
 >> and having a (semi-correct)

 >                ^^^^^^^^^^^^

 > You win the prize for the most Orwellian spelling of "untested and
 > broken" that I've seen today. (so far.)

	If this comment has some purpose conductive to free software
	development, I’m afraid it has so far eluded me.  (Though I
	suppose I can be glad for you if you’ve found my wording amusing.)

 > Whilst you wasted your time (and ours) on this side-show,

	If reading my messages on debian-devel@ takes a non-trivial amount
	of time for you, may I suggest that you filter them out?

	As for the assessment of how productive my efforts are – please
	don’t; I’m perfectly capable of doing that myself.

 > the actual maintainer has actually fixed the dependency problem
 > (a one line change in the control file)

	From whence I’ve found it adequate to probe if an effort to fix
	the apparent violation of Policy 9.11 (quoted below) would be

  […]  However, any package integrating with other init systems must
  also be backwards-compatible with sysvinit by providing a SysV-style
  init script with the same name as and equivalent functionality to any
  init-specific job, as this is the only start-up configuration method
  guaranteed to be supported by all init implementations.

  — http://debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#alternate-init-systems

FSF associate member #7257  http://am-1.org/~ivan/