Re: Removing conflicts of init system
- To: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>
- Cc: Dmitry Bogatov <KAction@debian.org>, systemd@packages.debian.org, sysvinit@packages.debian.org, runit@packages.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Removing conflicts of init system
- From: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:54:26 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20181222165426.GA1288@gaara.hadrons.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>, Dmitry Bogatov <KAction@debian.org>, systemd@packages.debian.org, sysvinit@packages.debian.org, runit@packages.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] alpine.DEB.2.21.1812212356270.11761@tglase.lan.tarent.de>
- References: <[🔎] E1gaPwU-0002fD-Bb@eggs.gnu.org> <[🔎] alpine.DEB.2.21.1812212356270.11761@tglase.lan.tarent.de>
Hi!
On Fri, 2018-12-21 at 23:57:38 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> > I propose to replace current approach with update-alternatives(1)
> […]
> > Opinions?
> No. update-alternatives is too fragile to handle things like
> /bin/sh and init(8).
While this certainly used to be true, I don't it has been the case for
a long time now? It seems like oral tradition to me now. :) There is I
think a single non-wishlist bug report against u-a in the BTS. So if
there are still problems I'd be more than happy to hear about them.
But regardless of the above, I think using alternatives would not be a
good idea, because then those programs cannot be diverted, something I
think at least molly-guard is doing. Also how to select the correct
priority?
I think what Lorenz proposes is a superior option.
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: