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

Re: sysvinit: moving the contents out of the Essential: yes package?

On 11/26/2013 04:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 00:16 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> The only way to address the Essential conflict for the jessie release
>>> seems to be to move the contents of sysvinit to a new package, and make
>>> sysvinit a metapackage that depends on an ORed list of the possible
>>> providers of /sbin/init.  E.g.:
>>> Package: sysvinit
>>> Essential: yes
>>> Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | upstart | systemd-sysv
>> What about adding openrc to the list above, at least for some
>> architectures. No decision has been made by the ctte yet, or?
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe OpenRC does not provide
> process 1 or /sbin/init and still relies on sysvinit for that.  So the
> above would be correct for OpenRC.

This is correct, OpenRC uses sysvinit, and replaces only sysv-rc (which
BTW shows that replacing a well working PID 1, or adding any piece of
code in it, is absolutely not needed at all). Currently, it does:

Package: openrc
Architecture: any
Conflicts: sysv-rc
Replaces: sysv-rc
Provides: sysv-rc

With the above, it's easy to switch from one to the other. Well, that is
before the mess with the version-depends on sysv-rc introduced by the
debhelper thing for upstart, which messed-up a few things... I hope many
packages have been rebuilt with the new debhelper version since that has
been corrected, especially the essential ones (like ifupdown and the
others (I can't remember)).

By the way, is there any progress on the porting of Upstart to
kFreeBSD/hurd? I've been very pleased to see that there's been at least
some plans. But is there someone that has started implementing it?


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply to: