On 04/07/2012 07:04 PM, intrigeri wrote: > May I ask why? sure.
there are two reasons, mainly: first, it clutters the system uselessly. it seems overkill to me to need the whole initscripts package just for that single program. granted, initscripts is not a really huge package. second, i prefere to avoid packages of other init systems when using non-sysvinit init. some init systems behave different (switching to 'legacy' mode automatically, rather than to run in 'native' mode) when initscripts is installed. if /bin/mountpoint would be a complex and very handy program, well, i would not have much of a problem (maybe trying to get it moved to another binary or source package (e.g. util-linux where it would be a proper fit)). however.. /bin/mountpoints can be replicaeded as a function of two lines of shell only, so, weighting above two issues (which are not that convincing by itself) against a trivial shell function, i'd go for the latter. > I think the initscripts binary package, even if it's built from the > sysvinit source package, can perfectly coexist with alternative init > systems, can't it? absolutely. i didn't ment to imply a conflict between the two packages. > Moreover, initscripts is "Priority: required", so... first, this will change as soon as debian allows to have non-sysvinit initsystems choosen by the user. granted, probably not for wheezy, but we shouldn't rely on it when we know that this will change anytime 'soon' anyway. second, e.g. on progress linux, the wheezy based system will use systemd by default. being nice to derivatives, it would be nice to not need to ship custom live-boot just because of this. -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-live-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f807728.2060...@progress-technologies.net
