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

Re: Removing sysV init files


On 2016-01-15, Alec Leamas wrote:
> 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?

As Michael Biebl already mentioned, this is overkill (and borderline 
broken, because the hypothetical 'lirc-sysv' won't be pulled in by 
upgrades, thereby breaking kfreebsd-any and hurd).

Working sysv initscripts for lircd/ lircmd/ irexec:


which are masked by the according, upstream provided, systemd units,
therefore being a no-op on systems using systemd and drop-in 
replacements for systems not using it (respectively not being able
to use systemd yet, namely kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 and hurd).
The maintenance overhead for these is minimal, at least for the time
being, unless there are significant (upstream) changes in the queue 
for lirc and there is little excuse to intentionally break support
for sysvinit (== non-linux ports).

Combined, these three initscripts (including lots of whitespace) are 
5 KB in size, the packaging overhead (/usr/share/doc/<PACKAGE>/ and
the space this required in the package indices, e.g. Packages.gz) for 
these would far bigger than the potential gain of stripping them out 
(the only advantage would be being able to drop the dependency on 
lsb-base, a whopping 51 KB installed package size --> not worth it, 
even assuming lsb-base wouldn't be required by many other core packages

	Stefan Lippers-Hollmann

Attachment: pgpUNhY1V1QM9.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP

Reply to: