On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 17:14 -0700, Cameron Norman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote: > > Personally, in this case, I'd argue that the desirable dependency (which > > we can't easily express) would be "sysvinit-core ? systemd-shim : > > systemd-sysv". > > To be more precise, it would be "!systemd-sysv ? systemd-shim : > systemd-sysv" so that other alternate inits are treated equally. > > As you hopefully can see, this can be condensed to "systemd-sysv ? > systemd-sysv : systemd-shim" AKA "systemd-shim | systemd-sysv" :)
You completely missed the point, which was to distinguish between systems that have explicitly installed the new use-sysvinit-as-init package and systems that only use sysvinit because they have not yet upgraded to the new default. Neither of those have systemd-sysv installed, thus your version does not work. >From another mail: > If the transition is already happening, why have the dependency be > like it is anyway? User's systems will be switched regardless, so > there is no use in having a second pass at changing the init. For partial upgrades. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
