On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:48:06 +0000 Mark Hindley <m...@hindley.org.uk> wrote:
I guess a corresponding "Protected: yes" flag should be added to systemd-sysv accordingly (so looping in the systemd maintainers).Julian,Many thanks for this. On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 12:23:01PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > That being said, being able to switch init systems without a pin is > a bug in the init system; init systems should set the Protected: yes > field so that they cannot be removed without explicitly running> > apt remove --allow-remove-essential sysvinit-core> apt install/upgrade/... --allow-remove-essential sysvinit-core-> > (note that starting with 2.3.12/stable; --allow-remove-essential> only applies to arguments; the solver itself cannot decide to > remove essential packages anymore)> > As such I am reassigning this bug to sysvinit-core so it can gain> the appropriate flag. I don't see a problem with adding this. However, I have read deb-control(5) and the documentation relating to it and when it is required is quite sparse. I think this ought to be documented more clearly, perhaps in Policy? A quick search indicates that the packages currently utilising this flag is a somewhat disparate list[1]: login, reform-tools, various flavours of gcc, init-system-helpers, grub-*-signed... Mark [1] https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=Protected%3A+yes+path%3Adebian%2Fcontrol&literal=0
This kinda makes the "init" meta package moot (which I think is actually a good thing at this point). And the "init" meta can be removed.
Michael
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
