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

Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?

Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
>Wookey wrote:

>> I think some people are failing to see the humour in this name
>> (and Dawkins knows we could use some humour round this subject), but I
>> guess if it's not going to be allowed then it's not going to be
>> allowed.
>Yes, I also completely fail to see the humour, especially in the light
>of other remarks made on this list by the author of the
>systemd-must-die package[0]. I just can't stop making the connection

Yes, Debian definitely needs more people who understand the humour.
Again, that message was written with Usenet context in mind; the
*-must-die names for various packages were made with the idea of
not permitting them near systems administrated by me in mind and
to coin a unique namespace.

But then, I did not upload them, and I do not oppose a name change.
Also, add the "Important: yes" header (and, obviously, remove the
Origin/Bugs headers that I put there for all packages in my own
repositories) to make apt DTRT. (Also, Section metapackages is
probably correct.)

prevent-systemd-{completely,installed,running} is a naming scheme
people would not disagree with, I hope? (Wookey knows the cut between
these three.)

As for the Multi-Arch headerâ?¦ if uploading a package targetting sid,
just do it the sid way. The packages in my archive are usually way
more portable than that.

As for dh5: there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG AT ALL with that.
Using dh or *shudder* cdbs introduces too many automatisms.
(That being said, dh for such a metapackage would be fine, but
the systemd-must-die binary package is built from a larger source
package in my repo, which does more than just that and will maybe
even grow more.)


Reply to: