I'll just mention a second naming possibility for a virtual package, since this might come up later.
Having a virtual package for init scripts would be rather convenient for the LSB as well, IMO, since the LSB requires that you use a System V compatible initialization script, but doesn't exactly require you to use sysvinit as far as I know. So, if no one likes the init package name, then lsb-init might be an acceptable alternative. This is also one of the reasons why upstart has a sysv compatible version (the upstart-compat-sysv package in Ubuntu), since otherwise, it'd make it impossible to use upstart and keep a LSB compatible configuration. Now, it might not be perfect to just have the lsb-init package used even in cases where the user doesn't care about containing LSB compatibility, but it's something to take into consideration. I still think that this would be the best sort of solution going forward to solve this problem, and probably the most flexible as well. _______________________________________________ Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
