Re: Installing an Alternative Init?
The Wanderer wrote:
On 11/12/2014 at 10:43 AM, Brian wrote:
On Tue 11 Nov 2014 at 23:18:56 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
systemd being "the default init system" can/could mean many
One of those things would mean that all of the things you say must
necessarily be true. That possible meaning is embodied in the
current implementation of the package dependencies and of
There are other possible meanings which would not mean that. From
the perspective of such a meaning, the current debian-installer
implementation is incorrect, and therefore buggy.
The entire reason I responded in the first place is that you were
making an unqualified statement about the meaning of the phrase
"the default init system", without supporting that statement with
arguments or evidence, when the question of the meaning of that
phrase is - at some important level - the very thing which is under
That sort of implicit assumption is not conducive to good argument,
or to fostering even the possibility of understanding and agreement
between the sides of a disagreement.
The reality is that d-i in jessie installs systemd. I labelled this
reality with the phrase "default init system". I could change to
using another phrase but it will not alter the reality.
Your original statement was that "systemd is the default init system.
That means everyone gets it."
I understood that statement as meaning "the reason why d-i in jessie
installs systemd-sysv unconditionally is because systemd is the default
I was trying to point out that systemd being the default init system
does not automatically imply that d-i must necessarily install
systemd-sysv unconditionally. It could, for example, only mean that d-i
must install systemd-sysv unless some configuration setting is in place
to tell it to do otherwise. This would be a weaker sense of "default",
but still an entirely valid one.
And, in fact, the d-i provides for installing alternatives to the
default init system. It's just that a long-standing bug, in another
package (deboostrap) prevents d-i from doing so as advertised.
Or of actually getting to a point where the d-i can install alternative
init systems, as advertised.
If you assume that "because X, therefore Y", when the discussion at hand
is specifically based on the fact that other people believe "X does not
necessarily mean Y", then there is very little chance of anything
productive or conclusive (or even persuasive) being said - at least in
your part of the discussion. I think that would be unfortunate, and that
is why I felt it worth posting in this thread to begin with.