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

Bug#762194: Alternative proposal for init switch on upgrades.

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
>> I would like to propose a different one.
> [...]
>> So, the change would be that: the sysvinit package would cease being a
>> transition / shim package, however it would not signal that a user
>> explicitly installed sysvinit; sysvinit-core would be a simple package
>> that just depended on sysvinit, and the presence of this package
>> *would* signal that the user explicitly installed sysvinit; init would
>> (pre-)depend on "systemd-sysv | sysvinit | sysvinit-core | upstart".
> I'm afraid this doesn't allow partial upgrades from wheezy to use
> systemd-sysv, as sysvinit is an essential package there, and apt considers
> packages to be essential if they're present in any source.

I take it you mean that the user will have to remove an essential
package to install systemd-sysv, not that the package will not be
installable, correct?

That seems reasonable to me. If the user has packages from Wheezy
installed, those packages could reasonably depend on sysvinit as PID 1
without expressing that dependency. It would be a bug, IMO, if
sysvinit was not PID 1 while Wheezy packages were installed and the
user had not expressed that he or she understood the implications of
removing sysvinit.

Thus, I maintain that my proposal is an appropiate approach.

Cameron Norman

Reply to: