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

runinit-run, releaseability thereof



The package runinit-run, if successfully installed, generally breaks
the system by breaking booting.  The administrator is supposed to fix
up the boot arrangements by converting startup scripts etc. after
installing runinit-run.

The administrator's attention is drawn to this by a debconf question:

  Template: runit-run/install
  Type: boolean
  Default: false
  _Description: Really replace the init scheme?
   This package diverts sysvinit's /sbin/init program, and so replaces
   the default sysv init scheme.  After the first installation of the
   runit-run package, migrate essential services from sysvinit to runit,
   so that these will get started after reboot.  Then, use
    # /sbin/init.sysv 6
   to reboot the system with runit as process no 1.
   .
   Please read the documentation before proceeding
    http://smarden.org/runit/

If the question is answered "no", the installation is aborted.


This was discussed in #562945.  The Technical Committee was asked to
rule on this bug, in particular about the fact that it makes the
package impossible to install noninteractively.  Our decision was[1]:

 * We declined to override the runit-run maintainer about the fact that
   the package cannot be installed noninteractively.  This use of
   debconf is discouraged but /not/ forbidden.

 * We advised the Policy maintainers to proceed with the existing proposed
   language regarding high-priority prompts (they've now done so).

 * In our (non-binding) opinion it is a bug that the package, when
   installed without further action, breaks the system's bootup.

 * We decided to refer to the Release Team the question as to
   whether the package is releaseable in its current state.

So, we would appreciate it if you would take a look at this situation
and decide.  When you've decided you should probably set the severity
of #562945 so that it's release-critical iff you think runinit-run is
not releaseable in its current state.  For now I have set the bug to
"serious".

Thanks for your attention.

Ian.

[1] I have paraphrased somewhat, to make it clearer out of context.


Reply to: