Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
Package: init Version: 1.20 Severity: serious Tags: patch Dear Maintainer, init metapackage is marked essential, even though none of the inits are currently essential. There are environments in which no init is needed, e.g. chroots and minimal/exec-only containers (like docker). Also one

Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Ansgar Burchardt
Control: severity -1 wishlist On 07/25/2014 16:19, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: init metapackage is marked essential, even though none of the inits are currently essential. There are environments in which no init is needed, e.g. chroots and minimal/exec-only containers (like docker). Also one

Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Michael Biebl
severity 756023 wishlist thanks Hi, Am 25.07.2014 16:19, schrieb Dimitri John Ledkov: Package: init Version: 1.20 Severity: serious Tags: patch Dear Maintainer, init metapackage is marked essential, even though none of the inits are currently essential. There are environments in which

Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
On 25 July 2014 15:28, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org wrote: Control: severity -1 wishlist On 07/25/2014 16:19, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: init metapackage is marked essential, even though none of the inits are currently essential. There are environments in which no init is needed, e.g.

Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 25.07.2014 16:48, schrieb Dimitri John Ledkov: In that case, apart from a new name and new source-package, why do we need two identical metapackages? This seems utterly redundant and more complicated then simply using sysvinit package for the transition. Ok, whatever. Well, read the