On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:14:01 -0700 Cameron Norman <camerontnor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote: > > I'm pulling a quote from the bottom of Steve's mail to the top, to call > > attention to a new and critical point that I didn't see raised anywhere > > in the debian-devel discussion: > > > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:23:18 -0700 Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote: > >> If we decide that init *should* be automatically changed on upgrade, then > > > > (Which I'm assuming from your footnote [1] that you *are* in favor of?) > > > >> the ordering of the dependencies on libpam-systemd is immaterial except in > >> the specific case that someone has upgraded to (or newly installed) jessie, > >> selected an init system other than the default, and subsequently installed > >> a > >> desktop environment on a system that didn't initially have one. In this > >> case, installing the DE *definitely* should not override the user's > >> explicit selection of init system. > > > > *This* is a point that I haven't seen raised in the entire previous > > discussion on debian-devel, and I think it's a completely valid point. > > > > Personally, in this case, I'd argue that the desirable dependency (which > > we can't easily express) would be "sysvinit-core ? systemd-shim : > > systemd-sysv". > > To be more precise, it would be "!systemd-sysv ? systemd-shim : > systemd-sysv" so that other alternate inits are treated equally.
No, that's not equivalent. Having sysvinit-core installed, since it only exists in jessie, indicates a system with sysvinit intentionally and explicitly installed. That said, as mentioned in my response to Steve's mail, approximating the dependency with "systemd-shim | systemd-sysv" may suffice *if* it doesn't break the new-install, upgrade, d-i, or debootstrap cases. > One question: if `init` and `libpam-systemd` (with the inversed > dependency) are installed simultaneously on a system with only > sysvinit installed (i.e. Wheezy), apt would know that systemd-sysv is > going to be installed (to satisfy init package's dependency) and would > not install systemd-shim, correct? That was one of the scenarios I mentioned in my response to Steve's mail. Someone should actually test that. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
