Am 15.01.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Alec Leamas: > On 15/01/16 19:04, Russ Allbery wrote: >> >> I feel like removing the sysvinit scripts entirely would be "reverting >> existing support without a compelling reason." But I also think that >> people who want to use sysvinit (or upstart, or any other init system) >> will have to contribute some support there in the form of bug reports and >> patches, just as with any other non-default configuration in Debian. >> Your >> obligation as maintainer is to "merge reasonable contributions" as >> mentioned above. > > OK, seems that all agree that the scripts should be kept in the package. > So the question then becomes how. As you might have understood I have a > bad gut feeling about them. > > Given this, would it be OK to put the sysV scripts in a separate > subpackage which can be properly commented? > I think a sub package is overkill and up until now, this has been avoided in Debian. If your package ships both a systemd service unit and a sysv init script, you need to make sure that under systemd the native service file is used. The easiest way to achieve that is to use the same names for the unit file and the init script, i.e. /etc/init.d/foo should match /lib/systemd/system/foo.service If the names do not match, you can ship a (static) symlink in the package, say you have /etc/init.d/foo and /lib/systemd/system/bar.service. Then ship a symlink like this /lib/systemd/system/foo.service → /lib/systemd/system/bar.service -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature