Re: Transition plan for changing the default init system
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> What are the reasons behind are you going for required and not standard?
>
>A Priority: required package (init) isn't allowed to depend on something
>with Priority: standard per policy.
Among even minbase, there are a *lot* of violations of this
particular rule of Policy. There is also nothing in place
checking them. I occasionally ask around when I see something
new pop up, for example when ustr was added (shadow (required)
depends on SELinux stuff which pulls it in).
Other examples:
libpam-modules (required) Pre-Depends libaudit1 (optional)
libpam-modules (required) Pre-Depends libdb5.3 (standard)
apt-utils, iproute2 also depend on libdb5.3
It's really easy to find examples. I did this as part of
the m68k work a lot.
I think this particular ruling of Policy was to be able
to "cut" for the installer media, by making concentric
circles of "self-contained" repositories or something.
Given how often this rule is violated, I'd say make
only the new "init" package required and put systemd
into standard and sysvinit into extra. And talk to
the Policy editors about this rule, its current state,
and whether its scope should be adjusted, or whether
we need an MBF before the release.
bye,
//mirabilos
Reply to: