Hi, Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> writes: > So we are proposing the following scheme: > > a/ Upload a new "init" package. This is a new, essential package that > will replace sysvinit as the package that ensures your system has an > init system. We want to build this binary package from a package which > is not tied to an actual init system, so we chose the > init-system-helpers source package. Patch for init-system-helpers is > available at [2].
Would it be possible to have "init" not be essential while we are already changing things? There are valid use cases for init-less systems, for example chroot environments. invoke-rc.d and update-rc.d would probably still have to be in a essential package, but not an entire init system. > b/ Demote sysvinit to Priority: optional and install an extra copy of > the sysvinit binary into /lib/sysvinit/ so you can recover if your > system fails to boot with systemd. This can be achieved by booting with > init=/lib/sysvinit/init on the kernel command line. Patch for sysvinit > is available at [3]. On kfreebsd, init would then depend on an optional package as we don't support arch-specific priorities. That is (IIRC) a policy violation, but do any practical problems arise from this? > c/ Upload a new version of the init package which does the actual switch > and changes the order via Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | > sysvinit-core. Diff[4] Why do a, and c, in two steps? > d/ Adjust the priorities of systemd and systemd-sysv. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85tx6hj7z6....@tsukuyomi.43-1.org
