> systemd-sysvinit can't be essential since that'd force it onto all > systems.
I suppose, then, that implies that a "virtual package" - "init", for instance - would have to be marked "Essential", and that both sysvinit and systemd-sysv would have to _not_ be marked as "Essential". More generally, there are several "component packages" that compose a working "systemd" itself, and these components will not create a "working init" unless installed as a group. So then, there will also have to be some "systemd virtual package" that brings together these components, and it will be this "systemd virtual package" that is marked "Provides: init, Conflicts: init, and Replaces: init", and not systemd-sysv itself. The virtual package "systemd", it seems, would include: some renamed "systemd-base", which was the previous "systemd" package libpam-systemd libsystemd-daemon0 libsystemd-login0 systemd-sysv Of course, some of the other packages, systemd-gui for instance, would be referenced by "Recommends: systemd-gui" within the new "systemd" virtual package. James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
