Hello all,
Michael Biebl [2016-05-19 18:27 +0200]:
> Could we add the Important: yes field to "init"? Having that makes a lot
> of sense to me.
Indeed, I did that now in git. I tested in a schroot, and "apt-get
purge init" now indeed complains ("yes, do as I say"), but one can
still remove it wit
Am 19.05.2016 um 18:29 schrieb Ansgar Burchardt:
> On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 18:27 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Could we add the Important: yes field to "init"? Having that makes a
>> lot of sense to me.
>
> To init or to its dependencies (systemd-sysv, sysvinit-core)? The
> latter would not only w
Am 19.05.2016 um 18:27 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 19.05.2016 um 18:11 schrieb Martin Pitt:
>>
>>> - Now:
>>>+ "init" package: Remove "Essential: yes"
>>>+ "init-system-helpers" package: Add "Essential: yes"
>>> - Later:
>>>+ "init": Change priority from "required" to "important".
>>
On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 18:27 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Could we add the Important: yes field to "init"? Having that makes a
> lot of sense to me.
To init or to its dependencies (systemd-sysv, sysvinit-core)? The
latter would not only warn when uninstalling all init systems, but also
when switc
Am 19.05.2016 um 18:11 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> Control: tag -1 pending
>
> Hello all,
>
> Ansgar Burchardt [2016-05-05 15:05 +0200]:
>> I would like "init" to be optional in Debian 9 for chroot environments
>> and some uses of containers. A first step seems to be making "init" no
>> longer essent
Hi,
On Thu, 2016-05-19 at 18:11 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > And do we miss anything for the priority change after that (besides
> > confirming with d-boot@)?
> Would you mind starting the discussion on d-boot for that?
I would like to wait a few more days (until the next d-i alpha
currently in
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello all,
Ansgar Burchardt [2016-05-05 15:05 +0200]:
> I would like "init" to be optional in Debian 9 for chroot environments
> and some uses of containers. A first step seems to be making "init" no
> longer essential; it would nice nice if the priority could later be
>
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #756023 [init] init: Move "Essential: yes" from init to init-system-helpers
Bug #823501 [init] init: move "Essential: yes" from init to init-system-helpers
Added tag(s) pending.
Added tag(s) pending.
--
756023: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr
Hello all.
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 03:49:57PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Felipe Sateler writes:
[...]
> > The util-linux maintainer is very much trying to get rid of that
> > dependency (I can't find an online reference, but discussed on IRC),
> > and it is not done only because apt currentl
Felipe Sateler writes:
> On 5 May 2016 at 10:05, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> As maintainer scripts call `invoke-rc.d` and `update-rc.d`
>> unconditionally, the package providing these scripts should be made
>> essential (i.e. add "Essential: yes" to init-system-helpers).
>
> Just thinking out loud,
On 5 May 2016 at 10:18, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> Do we miss anything to start with moving the "Essential" field? I think
>> /bin/pidof was mentioned which is provided by sysvinit-utils; however
>> sysvinit-utils will continue to stay quasi-essential as util-linux has
>> Depends: sysvinit-utils
On 5 May 2016 at 10:05, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 init: Move "Essential: yes" from init to
> init-system-helpers
> Control: tag -1 - patch
> Control: forcemerge -1 823501
>
> I would like "init" to be optional in Debian 9 for chroot environments
> and some uses of containers.
Control: retitle -1 init: Move "Essential: yes" from init to init-system-helpers
Control: tag -1 - patch
Control: forcemerge -1 823501
I would like "init" to be optional in Debian 9 for chroot environments
and some uses of containers. A first step seems to be making "init" no
longer essential; it
13 matches
Mail list logo
