Tags Tags

Bug#645540: "Essential" package conflict between sysvinit and systemd-sysv

February 06th, 2012 - 12:50 pm ET by Michael Biebl | Report spam
Help Create a new topic
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)

Instead of trying to make system(-sysv) Essential, I'm wondering if we
can't just drop the Essential flag from sysvinit.

At least the special semantic property of an Essential package - being
usable directly after unpack - is not relevant for sysvinit afaics.

Being priority: required will also make sure it is installed by default.

Another essential package, like base-files, could depend on sysvinit |
init and systemd-sysv (or upstart for that matter) could add a Provides:
init as soon as we see fit.

This way we would ensure that we always have a working /sbin/init which
basically is what the kernel or the initramfs expects.

What else am I missing?

Cheers,
Michael


As a side note: the upstart package in Ubuntu has dropped the Essential
flag since a very long time.
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?







To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
email Follow the discussionReplies 1 replyReplies Make a reply

Replies

#1 Roger Leigh
February 08th, 2012 - 09:00 am ET | Report spam
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 06:40:55PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
Instead of trying to make system(-sysv) Essential, I'm wondering if we
can't just drop the Essential flag from sysvinit.

At least the special semantic property of an Essential package - being
usable directly after unpack - is not relevant for sysvinit afaics.

Being priority: required will also make sure it is installed by default.

Another essential package, like base-files, could depend on sysvinit |
init and systemd-sysv (or upstart for that matter) could add a Provides:
init as soon as we see fit.

This way we would ensure that we always have a working /sbin/init which
basically is what the kernel or the initramfs expects.



This sounds useful and, if done properly, shouldn't cause any
breakage. I'm not sure that base-files is necessarily the
best package to add the dependency to--it has no deps. Possibly
creating an Essential "base-init" package which contains the
dependencies would be better. It could be separate or just
added to sysvinit as a new package.

This would also permit us to provide a dummy init package for
e.g. chroot environments, potentially.


Regards,
Roger

.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.



To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact

Similar topics

Make your own search :