On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:01:17 +0100
John Hughes <john@???> wrote:

> On 19/11/17 15:10, Jaromil wrote:
> > Following up after the conversation on redis, when we had the
> > elected Debian leader chiming in here to defend his position and
> > keep deleting init.d scripts, I still believe this is again "even
> > worst than I thought" and it is "vandalism".
> But Jaromil, as Chris Lamb pointed out that is not what happened:
>
> Chris Lamb:
> > I am the maintainer of Redis in Debian. All I have done is removed
> > some ill-conceived hooks that were not used by anyone. I have not
> > dropped sysvinit support and nor do I have any intention to do so.
> > I only ask politely that you do stop to refering to my work as
> > "vandalism".
> To summarise.
>
> 1. the upstream redis distribution does not include an init script.
> (There is an example init script in their git, but nothing in the
> distributed tarball).
>
> 2. Debian wrote their own init script.
>
> 3. At some point they added an undocumented feature to their init
> script.  This feature does not exist in the upstream example init
> script.
>
> 4. Since the feature was buggy, and since it had never been
> documented, Chris Lamb removed it.
>
> 5. Some people misread the commit message as saying that sysvinit
> support was being dropped.  They didn't check whether that was the
> case by looking at the publicly available package and source.
>
> Is this the Devuan policy?  "Assume bad faith"?
>

And now 'A T' cannot reply to the correct thread ;-)

Rowland