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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:

Le Tue, 11 Nov 2014 07:42:33 -0500,
Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> a écrit :


On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> wrote:
> Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
>> Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in
>> such a way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any
>> potential problems that might result from later uninstallation all
>> the dependencies that systemd brings in with it.

> Please be specific. What problems of of dependencies are you
> talking about?

Please stop bring up irrelevant questions and address the question
being asked.

This does require you to at least understand and acknowledge the
difference between a *clean* install, and installing something one
way, then having to uninstall a primary piece and replace it with
something else.

The two are not the same, and no amount of you trying to act as if
they are will change the fact that they are not.


There are no functional differences between an installation with
sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
installed later, this is a fact.

Allowing the user to choose this at install time from the interface is
a "nice to have" feature (wishlist bug) not a RC bug like you were
claiming earlier.
There is a potential practical consequence of not advertising an init alternative during setup. It makes users less likely to be aware of it, or even aware that the init system has changed. 

They won't know they lost the choice they didn't know they had. Capisce?
They won't know, that is, until it bites them somewhere down the line. Then they won't know where to look or who to blame, and will blame Debian.
Installation time may be only means that most users (like me*) ever would learn about it. 

* Install instructions? We don't need no stinkin' instructions
Reply to: