Bug#770812: tasksel: task-sysvinit to allow easy installation of non-systemd systems
Please DISCUSS, don't just turn down.
You owe this to me, and others, that want to make our users happy.
This is a frequently requested feature, and you don't even want to
discuss whether the suggested approach is possible...
Your behavior is nothing short of rude.
Did you even read the mail?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Erich Schubert <erich@debian.org> (2014-11-24):
>> Package: tasksel
>> Version: 3.29
>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>> Hello,
>> It has been argued that late changes to the debian installer should be
>> avoided, and the maintainers have clearly expressed that they do not want
>> to add another debconf question:
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2014/11/msg00408.html
>>
>> My proposal is not to forcibly have users answer this question and decide
>> on an init system upon install. But there seems to be a larger userbase
>> that does want to keep sysvinit (in fact, I have switched all my systems
>> to systemd; but I do have an interest to have the noise eventually stop).
>>
>> Can maybe the "tasks" system help here?
>> Can we have a task-sysvinit which depends on sysvinit-core, and which
>> conflicts systemd-sysv, and does installing such a task achieve the
>> desired results at installation time?
>>
>> IMHO, adding a task package is a minimally invasive change to the install
>> process, and given the many requests for a sysvinit install option, this
>> may well be acceptable to the release managers. It's just not entirely
>> clear to me whether this works (i.e. when tasks are considered during
>> the installation phase, and whether this allows overriding the package
>> providing "init"), and the procedure necessary to get such a change
>> accepted into tasksel, the installation media, and jessie.
>>
>> (And yes, I'm aware of the preseeding option to pass
>> preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"
>> to the installer. Essentially, I'm thinking of minimally invasive ways
>> to make this easier to access by end users - this is a pretty long
>> boot option to type, without the option of doing copy&paste when installing
>> a physical system...)
>>
>> In the end, "Switch boot process to sysvinit" is a "task" that will end up
>> on the TODO list of many sysadmins (e.g. where because of some compatibility
>> or policy issue, they want to have all their servers on sysvinit)
>
> Again, no.
>
> Mraw,
> KiBi.
Reply to: