Re: New essential package sysvinit-utils split out from sysvinit
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:09:55AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> To prepare for the async boot system upstart currently in
> experimental, the sysvinit source package maintainers have decided to
> split out a few programs from the sysvinit binary package. The new
> sysvinit-utils package will be a dependency of upstart, and the old
> sysvinit package is a conflict. This is to avoid the code duplication
> resulting from upstart to provide its own copy of the same programs if
> this split isn't done. The new sysvinit-utils package is an essential
> package, so the ftp-masters asked me to report its introduction here.
> The split has been tested using debootstrap and apt, so I do not
> expect any surprises with the installation system nor with upgrades
> because if this split.
> The new package is currently only in experimental, along with other
> changes to the boot system. I plan to test the other changes from
> experimental for a while before uploading to unstable.
sysvinit is also an Essential package. What steps are you taking to ensure
that you've retained the proper semantics for Essential? Such changes
should be backed with more than just an apt upgrade test, because an apt
upgrade where everything /works/ may not be the case we'll have to worry
about in the future. As a start, I think that sysvinit would need to
Pre-Depend on sysvinit-utils, to ensure that the packages are unpacked in
the correct order to not break sysvinit on disk.
Also, sysvinit is an Essential package. So how is upstart going to conflict
with it? (At least, it seems that upstart can't be usefully introduced into
Debian until etch+1, and that only if sysvinit itself is *not* going to be
Essential for etch.)
Which programs are going to be in the sysvinit package, and which ones are
going to be in the sysvinit-utils package, and why?
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.