I don't think this is a good idea. This would mean that someone who (likely) doesn't know the package, doesn't know the software, doesn't know how the daemon is started and why and what the prerequisities are, is supposed to replace init script by a systemd unit file. As previous mails indicate, their plan is to pick a unit file somewhere on the web, perhaps from some other distribution, and put it into the package.
Now we don't know who wrote the unit file, whether he actually does understand the software and whether it works properly and provides all functionality provided by the init script. And whoever is doing this doesn't even know how to test the software properly. If we are lucky, they will at least try to install the package and check that the daemon(s) start(s). In most cases, this will be sufficient but sometimes we end up with a headache like infamous bnc#857372 (which also illustrates why overruling package maintainer may be a bad thing).
It's still better than breaking perfectly valid builds without any fix in place. It gives us time and if done in a sane way, one by one and not in bulk, we will probably have a good chance to detect any problems. Some of us are running factory, at least for desktop and test machines. -- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer Tel.: +49-170-6381563 Mail: lang@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537