On 03/17/2012 02:45 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <l...@liw.fi> writes:
>
>
>> I don't know what should happen next, except someone should take
>> leadership on this issue and find a rough consensus on what we as a
>> project want to do. The usual way of that to happen is for someone to
>> grab a keyboard and start writing actual code, as opposed to
>> e-mails. Do-ocracy ftw.
>>
> I believe we should finalize the Policy update to allow packages to start
> including optional upstart scripts (#591791, which needs more seconds),
> write a similar Policy update for systemd, and then get some practical
> experience.
>
> That doesn't resolve the whole problem, but it does let people start doing
> things instead of just talking about it and may uncover interesting data.
> And allowing packages to include parallel upstart configuration with init
> scripts that defer to upstart when it's available has the separate
> advantage of immediately making life easier for packagers who want to
> maintain the same package on both Debian and Ubuntu.
>
There's not only the policy to change, unfortunately. I wrote it already.
Currently, if you make a debian/$package.upstart using dh 8 sequencer,
then $package will depend on upstart. Then if you install $package, it
will pull upstart, and remove sysvinit, which makes your system unusable
(since most package don't have upstart support).
So again, currently, adding upstart support in a package when using
dh 8 sequencer and ${misc:Depends} is *not* possible today.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f646894.5080...@debian.org
