On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 17:14 -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> > Personally, in this case, I'd argue that the desirable dependency (which
> > we can't easily express) would be "sysvinit-core ? systemd-shim :
> > systemd-sysv".
> 
> To be more precise, it would be "!systemd-sysv ? systemd-shim :
> systemd-sysv" so that other alternate inits are treated equally.
> 
> As you hopefully can see, this can be condensed to "systemd-sysv ?
> systemd-sysv : systemd-shim" AKA "systemd-shim | systemd-sysv" :)

You completely missed the point, which was to distinguish between
systems that have explicitly installed the new use-sysvinit-as-init
package and systems that only use sysvinit because they have not yet
upgraded to the new default. Neither of those have systemd-sysv
installed, thus your version does not work.


>From another mail:
> If the transition is already happening, why have the dependency be
> like it is anyway? User's systems will be switched regardless, so
> there is no use in having a second pass at changing the init.

For partial upgrades.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1411128134.1645.5.ca...@pp1.inet.fi

Reply via email to