[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#645540: "Essential" package conflict between sysvinit and systemd-sysv

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] James 

| Package: sysvinit
| Version: 2.88dsf-13.12
| 
| > I'd recommend just booting with init=/bin/systemd, tbh.  It's what I (as
| > the systemd maintainer) do on my own systems.
| 
| Well, that seems ironic, in that I would have expected the sytemd maintainer
| himself to have some keener interest in finally resolving this packaging
| problem.

I do have an interest in it, but removing Essential: yes from sysvinit
is not the first step in getting systemd better integrated in
Debian. You're of course free to think I should have a keener interest
in getting systemd-sysv be more useful, but I don't and the tone of your
mail does in no way make me more interested.  Given it's the only
feedback I've had about systemd-sysv, I'd be more inclined to just drop
the package than spend effort arguing about my priorities and being
accused of throwing road-blocks and dragging my feet.

| Here are the files that _do_not_ get installed when systemd-sysv is _not_
| installed:
| 
| /sbin/halt
| /sbin/init
| /sbin/poweroff
| /sbin/reboot
| /sbin/runlevel
| /sbin/shutdown
| /sbin/telinit
| /usr/share/doc/systemd-sysv/changelog.Debian.gz
| /usr/share/doc/systemd-sysv/copyright
| /usr/share/man/man1/init.1.gz
| /usr/share/man/man8/halt.8.gz
| /usr/share/man/man8/poweroff.8.gz
| /usr/share/man/man8/reboot.8.gz
| /usr/share/man/man8/runlevel.8.gz
| /usr/share/man/man8/shutdown.8.gz
| /usr/share/man/man8/telinit.8.gz
| 
| So then, you are saying that all those links back to /bin/systemctl are not
| important, or even, just a mistake?

No, I'm in no way saying they're a mistake and I see nothing in what I
write arguing for that.  Please don't construct strawmen or put words in
my mouth.

| And the man pages - nothing useful?  We do not need systemd-sysv?
| Then, why does it exist?  I think this line of reasoning is foolish -
| or absurd.

No, I'm saying you can work fine without it.  It exists so people can
experiment with it but it has some fairly serious problems associated
issued with it, like the conflict with an essential package.

| > systemd-sysvinit can't be essential since that'd force it onto all
| > systems.
| 
| I don't claim to be a Debian packaging expert.  I've only looked
| through the documentation.  Fine - don't make systemd-sysv an
| "Essential" package, just make it Provides: init, Conflicts: init, and
| Replaces: init, or some such.

That could work, if some other package then has a Depends on
init.  Such a package would be base-files, for instance.

This would require a bit of coordination with base-files.

| Either way, I do not accept any insinuation that the Debian packaging
| system is somehow "broken" and not able to handle multiple "init"
| packages.  That is also an absurd line of reasoning.

Again, please don't construct strawmen.  Nobody has said that the Debian
packaging system is broken or unable to handle multiple init systems.
I've explained why your suggested solution (adding Essential: yes) would
not work.

| There will have to be some changes in the package configuration of both
| sysvinit and systemd-sysv - sooner or later.  Please offer some useful
| solutions, rather than foot-dragging and throwing road-blocks.

I think it would be a useful first step to stop accusing people of
foot-dragging and throwing road-blocks.  You're coming across as quite
aggressive and confrontional.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are