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

Re: Comments on introducing a new Essential package: base-init?

On 09.02.2012 14:19, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi,
> On 09.02.2012 13:09, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> On 09.02.2012 11:50, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:03:27PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>>> sysvinit is currently Essential.
>>> Why do we need an init as essential anyway? It is used in all 
>>> real systems, but not chroots or other special systems. This 
>>> makes it similar to the kernel, which does not even have a high 
>>> priority.
> not objecting the idea by itself, please bear in mind this would turn
> thousands of packages RC buggy immediately, as they all need to

We do have ~1200 init scripts belonging to ~1100 packages.

> declare a dependency against (an) init script given they rely on a
> init script for functionality then.

I guess you are referring to the fact that initscripts would no longer
by transitively-essential.
Most sysv initscripts do not directly depend on services from
initscripts, like mountall, mountkernfs, checkfs or checkroot. Actually,
those direct dependencies in the LSB header are very rare and generally

What most if not all init scripts have in their LSB header, is a
dependency on a virtual facility like $local_fs or $remote_fs.

And those virtual facilities are only really interesting for insserv to
calculate the start priorities. So maybe if insserv depends on
initscripts that would be all that is needed.

Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: