Bug#746578: Reasons to keep systemd-sysv as the first alternative
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'm pulling a quote from the bottom of Steve's mail to the top, to call
> attention to a new and critical point that I didn't see raised anywhere
> in the debian-devel discussion:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:23:18 -0700 Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> If we decide that init *should* be automatically changed on upgrade, then
> (Which I'm assuming from your footnote  that you *are* in favor of?)
>> the ordering of the dependencies on libpam-systemd is immaterial except in
>> the specific case that someone has upgraded to (or newly installed) jessie,
>> selected an init system other than the default, and subsequently installed a
>> desktop environment on a system that didn't initially have one. In this
>> case, installing the DE *definitely* should not override the user's
>> explicit selection of init system.
> *This* is a point that I haven't seen raised in the entire previous
> discussion on debian-devel, and I think it's a completely valid point.
> Personally, in this case, I'd argue that the desirable dependency (which
> we can't easily express) would be "sysvinit-core ? systemd-shim :
To be more precise, it would be "!systemd-sysv ? systemd-shim :
systemd-sysv" so that other alternate inits are treated equally.
As you hopefully can see, this can be condensed to "systemd-sysv ?
systemd-sysv : systemd-shim" AKA "systemd-shim | systemd-sysv" :)
One question: if `init` and `libpam-systemd` (with the inversed
dependency) are installed simultaneously on a system with only
sysvinit installed (i.e. Wheezy), apt would know that systemd-sysv is
going to be installed (to satisfy init package's dependency) and would
not install systemd-shim, correct? Although, according to Steve that
would be simply an aesthetic issue, as systemd-shim does not impede
operation of systemd as init.