]] Ansgar Burchardt > 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.
At least some packages do assume that binaries like /sbin/runlevel exist, so dropping Essential: yes would mean a larger cleanup of the archive. I'm not opposed to that as such, but I'm not sure we need to entangle that into this change? (In most cases, I think people should be using containers and not chroots, in which case you might want an init, but that's a somewhat separate discussion.) [...] > 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? It would be useful to have a comment from one of the debootstrap maintainers about this, I think. That's the only one I can think of that actually cares much. Would it be hard to add support for per-arch priorities to dak? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are _______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list Pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
