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

Re: The future of non-dependency-based boot

Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 09, Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> wrote:
> > majority, it's going to be increasingly untested.  Do we want to
> > continue to maintain something that will be increasingly
> > unsupportable, or complete the migration cleanly before that point?
> Kill it. With fire.

Yes please.

> > WRT actually doing this, the main issues I can see are
> I say just abort the upgrade and let root deal with the issues found, 
> it's better than risking clobbering some local change.

To the extent root caused the problem in the first place with local
scripts.  The vast majority of such cases seem like issues caused by
Debian packages, as mentioned below.

> > - blocking by obsolete-but-unpurged init scripts without LSB header.
> >   We could mv them out of the way to .dpkg-old and continue, or
> >   abort and require manual intervention.
> Or just say in the release notes that it's a good idea to run something 
> like this before upgrading:
> dpkg -l | awk '/^rc/ {print $2}' | xargs --no-run-if-empty dpkg --purge

Personally, I run into more problems by upgrading packages that drop or
rename init scripts (and other conffiles).  dpkg keeps the old files
around even if unmodified, and leaves them associated with the package
despite no longer appearing in that package.  (This also makes them
difficult to track down and eliminate.)  I'd like to question that
particular decision of dpkg; I think it causes more pain than help.

- Josh Triplett

Reply to: