[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: Processed: block 726763 with 727708

]] Colin Watson 

> On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 12:57:39PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Colin Watson 
> > > The de facto interface for making an init system the default is to
> > > install it as /sbin/init.  While I'm coming at this from a starting
> > > point different from Cameron's above - I haven't yet decided whether I
> > > think it would be good for packages to be able to depend on specific
> > > pid 1 implementations - nevertheless, if we select systemd as the
> > > default I would argue that there should be some arrangement in
> > > packaging to put it in place as /sbin/init, even if that isn't
> > > upstream's advertised method.
> > 
> > You mean, like installing the systemd-sysv package?
> Indeed; but people earlier in this thread have said that this isn't the
> preferred approach, so I was arguing that this *should* be the preferred
> approach in Debian if systemd is selected as the default, rather than
> having helper packages that have to wander around fiddling with the
> configuration of half a dozen different boot loaders to point them to
> the right place.

It's the preferred way of testing and using systemd while sysvinit is
the default, since apt has pathological behaviours once you start
replacing Essential: yes packages.

Ifwhen the default changes, we'll change the recommended deployment
strategy as well.

> If the people whose comments I was reading weren't accurately reflecting
> the position of the Debian systemd maintainers, then I apologise for
> misunderstanding.

No worries, I think we got the misunderstanding (if we can even call it
that) cleared up.

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: