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. _______________________________________________ Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
