Hi Christian,
Thanks for considering my negative feedback in a constructive way.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 05:24:26PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
[]
>
> After reading the other emails, maybe we can converge on the
> following consensus / compromise?
>
> For stretch:
>
> - I
Maintainer scripts (postinst, postrm, etc) in packages are to always use
invoke-rc.d, exceptions are almost always a package bug. Even when using
systemd. The naming is unfortunate, yes.
But users and admins are to use service, and never invoke-rc.d.
And the systemd glue in invoke-rc.d is curr
[Martin Pitt]
> "service", not invoke-rc.d, but I do agree that it would be better to
> completely drop that magic. This would be a nice way to gradually teach people
> about the init system neutral APIs, and also find/fix places which hardcode
> calling /etc/init.d/.
Will service respect policy-r
On 12/29/2016 01:59 PM, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Martin Pitt]
>> "service", not invoke-rc.d, but I do agree that it would be better to
>> completely drop that magic. This would be a nice way to gradually teach
>> people
>> about the init system neutral APIs, and also find/fix places which har
Hi Andreas,
Sorry for not replying earlier, but I wanted to mull this over some
before answering.
On 12/27/2016 10:49 AM, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 01:34:41PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> (Cc'd a lot of people, so that hopefully everybody relevant
>> i
Hello Andreas, all,
Andreas Henriksson [2016-12-27 10:49 +0100]:
> At the same time for Buster it might be time to let go of this. Just
> leave init-d-script broken in this regard (and hopefully find someone
> willing to maintain it and handle its other issues). But in that case
> I also think the
Hello Christian Seiler,
On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 01:34:41PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Hi there,
> (Cc'd a lot of people, so that hopefully everybody relevant
> is included.)
[...]
Not sure my opinion on this matter is relevant, but since you CCed me
here are my 5 (swedish) öre on this:
The
Hello Christian,
Christian Seiler [2016-12-26 0:22 +0100]:
> But the reason why you want to make sysvinit-utils non-essential is to
> be able to remove the package. But if a lot of packages now depend on
> it, then this will be installed on most installs regardless, so there's
> no point in makin
Hello Martin,
On 12/25/2016 09:18 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Christian Seiler [2016-12-25 13:34 +0100]:
>> I think I have a solution to both issues - and my solution
>> does not require any change to any individual init script,
>> and best of all it doesn't even require changes to any
>> sysvinit-re
Hello Christian,
Christian Seiler [2016-12-25 13:34 +0100]:
> I think I have a solution to both issues - and my solution
> does not require any change to any individual init script,
> and best of all it doesn't even require changes to any
> sysvinit-related package (we get to have our cake and eat
Hi there,
(Cc'd a lot of people, so that hopefully everybody relevant
is included.)
Andreas Henriksson recently pointed me to the fact that there
are several problems with the current init-d-script in Debian
(which I use in my own packages to handle the non-systemd
cases), and he most prominently
11 matches
Mail list logo
