On Thu 18/Apr/2019 12:43:24 +0200 Ian Jackson wrote: > Dmitry Bogatov writes: >> >> As far as I know, "A depends B, B depends A" situation is called >> RC-critical bug. > > If shipped by Debian but it can perhaps arise due to old packages, > ad-hoc packages, etc. I agree that it's wrong but ISTM that it is > better not to break things if we don't need to. > > But I think the current behaviour of insserv in this situation is to > bomb out completely and refuse to operate, isn't it ? So it already > fails to disturb the existing symlinks ?
At least, that's what happens at mine. I had to write a quick script to overcome that, http://www.tana.it/sw/fix-init/. > As for "stable sort": > > So IMO if someone wants to send a patch which improves the algorithm > so that it preserves more of the existing link ordering, when > right now it doesn't care, we ought to consider it. (We'd want to > be sure it didn't have any meaningfully different behaviour in > "normal" configurations.) Rather than a patch, I'd consider an alternative executable. The link above displays a man page for the script. I'm not advocating that script, as it has many defects. However, I like its man page and its options. I don't think sparse patches to insserv can result in similar behavior. > Note that the existing scheme parallelises things when the > dependencies permit, and we should not take a patch which fails to > parallelise things just because the existing links aren't parallel. Here's a point I had never considered. Perhaps, that's because I tend to boot very sparingly --even on laptops, since suspend works well enough. I accept parallelism can be a very important point for several people. An instance of diversity? Best Ale --
