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

Re: Removing sysV init files

On 15/01/16 21:06, Michael Biebl wrote:
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.
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

It's more complicated. The systemd setup is three different services, the sysV one. There is no systemd service directly corresponding to the sysV one. In other words, here is two things taking place at once: a major upgrade + sysV -> systemd.



Reply to: