]] Colin Watson > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:57:39PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > ]] Colin Watson > > > The de facto interface for making an init system the default is to > > > install it as /sbin/init. While I'm coming at this from a starting > > > point different from Cameron's above - I haven't yet decided whether I > > > think it would be good for packages to be able to depend on specific > > > pid 1 implementations - nevertheless, if we select systemd as the > > > default I would argue that there should be some arrangement in > > > packaging to put it in place as /sbin/init, even if that isn't > > > upstream's advertised method. > > > > You mean, like installing the systemd-sysv package? > > Indeed; but people earlier in this thread have said that this isn't the > preferred approach, so I was arguing that this *should* be the preferred > approach in Debian if systemd is selected as the default, rather than > having helper packages that have to wander around fiddling with the > configuration of half a dozen different boot loaders to point them to > the right place.
It's the preferred way of testing and using systemd while sysvinit is the default, since apt has pathological behaviours once you start replacing Essential: yes packages. Ifwhen the default changes, we'll change the recommended deployment strategy as well. > If the people whose comments I was reading weren't accurately reflecting > the position of the Debian systemd maintainers, then I apologise for > misunderstanding. No worries, I think we got the misunderstanding (if we can even call it that) cleared up. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/m261ourd6a....@rahvafeir.err.no
