On Saturday, June 24, 2017 07:01:11 PM Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 24.06.2017 um 17:01 schrieb Simon McVittie: > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 at 16:04:32 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> Am 24.06.2017 um 15:09 schrieb Michael Gilbert: > >>> I entirely lost interest in the problem it was trying to solve when > >>> the init system "debate" concluded. It should be removed. > >> > >> FYI, I've filed #865752 for that. > > > > That doesn't solve the problem of the obsolete conffile breaking grub, > > though. > > Indeed not. But it answers the question whether init-select should be > NMUed in unstable. > > Should the grub maintainers edit the conffile in-place as > > > suggested (a Policy violation), or delete it or move it out of the way > > (also a Policy violation), or is there some other escape route possible > > here? > > > > It occurs to me that asking the CTTE for advice might be useful: they'd > > probably find it a refreshing change to have a question that is not a > > request to choose one side of a heated dispute between developers :-) > > Since it's pretty obvious that init-select is supposed to be removed, I > wouldn't have a problem with simply forcefully removing the offending > init-select.cfg conffile (and it's probably safe to drop this migration > code after one release cycle. > > Asking the CTTE certainly doesn't hurt. It was removed from unstable earlier today: $ dak ls init-select init-select | 1.20140921 | oldstable | source, all init-select | 1.20140921 | oldstable-kfreebsd | source, all Scott K
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.