Hello Mark, I quickly looked at both initscripts and util-linux branches and my only comment is about the util-linux-extra Breaks: initscript (<< ...).
Since initscripts will need (and has) Breaks/Replaces: util-linux-extra the circular nature of util-linux-extra having the same makes me think this is something which might be useful to think about a second time. Additionally, util-linux-extra might not even be installed on users system now that it's no longer pseudo-essential.... If we want to prevent (sysvinit) users from partially upgrading util-linux-extra and lack the hwclock machinery, then we likely also want to prevent them from deinstalling util-linux-extra which would have the same result. Thus I wonder maybe the Breaks: initscripts (<< ....) would be better to have on util-linux (Essential)...... IF it's needed at all. The util-linux package is the one which originally carried the hwclock init machinery after all. Hope you see that I've not thought all the way about this and not made up my mind of what I think is the best solution in the end, but hopefully my thoughts above give some food for thought. Just thought this might be something that might deserve a second thought even if nothing changes in the end. Regards, Andreas Henriksson
