Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

[Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>]

Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 11 nov 14, 12:34:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > > 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.
> > No, that's NOT a fact.  At least it's not a tested and demonstrated fact for
> > complex configurations such as virtualized environments with complicated
> > file system wiring.
> Wasn't this about clean (minimal) installs? Where did the all the
> complications come from?

Clean as in install systemvinit from the beginning, not after systemd 
was first installed by default.

Where the complications come in is that, when talking about testing the 
assertion that there are no complications associated with an "unclean" 
install, I pointed out that testing in a real environment is different 
than on a basic machine.

In my case, I'm worried about artifacts that might impact the stuff that 
I'll install immediately after the core system - like Xen, DRBD, 
cluster-glue, and then how an unclean install behaves inside a VM on top 
of that environment.


>   
> > Based on previous experience, mostly with mail systems (install exim, then
> > replace with sendmail) and filesystems, it's very easy to find oneself with
> > all kinds of artifacts left behind by an install/replace process; as well as
> > finding one's way into lots of packages getting installed/replaced and
> > associated dependency hell.
> Do you have any concrete evidence for such issues in this concrete case?
> Because I'm quite sure the developers would like to know about them.
> After all, that's the purpose of piuparts.
>
> https://piuparts.debian.org/
> https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/pass/systemd_215-5+b1.log
Sorry, but no.  I'm basing my decision on whether to invest time in 
in-depth testing on previous experience with what I consider to be 
analogous situations.

Miles Fidelman