On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 10:45 -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > On 07/04/2014 03:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > System service manipulation > > > > > > It must be possible to start, stop, enable and disable system > > > services using the initialization framework's standard commands. > > > > > > I don't think it needs any footnotes beyond standard 'References'. > > > > > > Does this seem reasonable to everyone? Thanks! > > > > Is this another way of saying "All services must provide a systemd > > unit file"? No. > Same question here. I’ve never heard of an “initialization framework” > before, I'd guess that’s the piece of code and conventions to > run .ctors. Just saying systemd would simplify things (though, > perhaps s/must provide/must be controlled by/ ?) As mitr (I think) understands, the criterion is intended to test systemd. I said "initialization framework" because I have a pathological attachment to generics, I guess. :P I meant it to be read as a generic term for 'sysvinit, or systemd, or whatever we invent in five years to replace systemd', so I don't have to rewrite the release criterion then. If someone can think of a more commonly understood generic term, I'm happy to substitute that. We *could* just say systemd, if everyone promises to let me say "I told you so!" when someone notices in five years it still says 'systemd' even though we all switched to openrc or something. (har, har.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
