Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 02/07/14 15:38, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> 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.)
You have not yet explained why apt pinning is not enough. And if for some reason
it's not enough, then that's what you need to fix. Surely we don't want 50000
foo-must-die packages.
Emilio
Reply to: