On 11/15/2014 at 07:21 PM, Paul E Condon wrote: > On 20141111_1807+0100, 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. > > Theory tells us this should be true, but it would be nice if there > were experimental evidence. For instance, a demonstration that the > files on two hardware-identical computers, with software installed in > the two different ways, are bit-for-bit identical. While I agree that this is the sort of test that would be needed to satisfy the people who are insisting that you can't be sure there isn't a difference, and while I'd like to see that verified myself, it does go well beyond testing for *functional* differences - at least as I understand that term. > Yet another topic: It should be possible to install systemd on a > system that already has some other init system installed on it. This > should be tested, but how? If I understand what you mean by "install systemd", then it's trivial: apt-get install systemd That does not switch the active init system to be systemd. Doing *that* would require: apt-get install systemd-sysv and even that, in its turn, does not (automatically?) remove sysvinit-core from the system; you can still boot to it (from a backup-installed location) with a kernel command line option, as a fallback if systemd does break something too badly to even boot. Or that's the claim, anyway. I've been examining files from sysvinit-core on my own computer in an attempt to remind myself of some of the details of how that works, and at a glance I don't see the backup copy of /sbin/init anywhere... -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature