Simon McVittie writes ("Bug#851747: sysvinit-utils: unmaintained package should
not be Essential"):
> So I would prefer if you didn't close #851747, but I'm dropping its
> severity: a maintained package in the Essential set is a lot better
> than an unmaintained one, but a smaller Essential in buster would
> be better still. This is clearly not something that will/should be
> fixed in stretch though.
That makes sense.
> This would mean that the (newly revitalised) sysvinit packaging team
> would only need to be responsible for systems that actually boot using
> sysvinit, and not systems that boot using systemd or init-less chroots
> that don't "boot" at all.
Nice pitch :-).
Thanks, I agree.
Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
