On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 16:53 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:57:39PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > 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. > > If the people whose comments I was reading weren't accurately reflecting > the position of the Debian systemd maintainers, then I apologise for > misunderstanding.
The main issue is that systemd-sysv conflicts with sysvinit-core, while the systemd package doesn't. If you do the first install of systemd with systemd-sysv, this doesn't only change the default, but forces the removal of the whole sysvinit implementation. This can be compared to a kernel package install that forces the removal of all previously installed kernels before you can boot to the new one. So the systemd-sysv route has the clear technical disadvantage that it does not support parallel installation of sysvinit and systemd. I think the ability to easily switch back to sysvinit for troubleshooting if you encounter issues does have some value. Of course, it would be possible to switch /sbin/init while both are installed. -- 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/1391539390.2272.40.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
