On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:30:57PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Hello Andrey Rahmatullin. > > Thanks for your input. (Did you also look at the other patches in the > series? Any objections or support for any of them?) I did and I thought I don't have enough confidence to say anything about them. > If we want to avoid mentioning dh_make I see the following options: > - someone volunteers to adopt sysvinit et.al. and actually triages > the bugs that has been reported against the current/new skeleton. > - someone NMUs sysvinit making /etc/init.d/skeleton the old template again. > > + writes additional text for policy where you can find examples for > non-sysvinit init systems. > > If you have to do it which one would you prefer to take on Andrey? ;) > (And do you see any other alternative solution you'd prefer to implement?) > Unless already obvious, my preference is to outsource to dh_make, > if I have to do the work myself. :) I wwanted to suggest putting the thing that dh_make does into /etc/init.d/skeleton but then I've found out dh_make does not generate an initscript at all. See #832764. That bug also says the dh_make skeleton was problematic too. It still generates a default.ex though, which mentions the initscript, I'll file a bug about that. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature