Simon McVittie writes: > On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 at 00:27:15 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> sysvinit probably only stays in testing because systemd >> depends on sysv-rc for compatability with LSB init scripts... > > I think it did during the default init system transition, but it doesn't > any more. > > sysvinit-utils is still Essential: yes, because it contains binaries that > were historically part of the Essential set; *that* keeps src:sysvinit > in testing. There are plans to make sysvinit-utils non-Essential by > moving pidof to a new Essential package built from src:procps (lots > of packages blindly assume that pidof exists, so adding dependencies > doesn't seem feasible) and adding dependencies for the few uses of the > other sysvinit-utils binaries, which have been OK'd in principle by the > maintainer of src:sysvinit, but haven't happened yet.
Oh, right, I somehow ended up thinking the LSB init script bits from lsb-base were part of sysvinit, but they aren't. > sysv-rc and initscripts are both present on about 72% of installations > that report to popcon, even though systemd-sysv is present on about 78% > of those installations and sysvinit-core is present on less than 2%. > I don't know what's going on in the other 20% - surely they can't all > be wheezy or older? Perhaps some of them are chroots or containers with > no init system at all? If you look at the version graph at https://popcon.debian.org (leaving out intermediate versions): 1.28 (sarge) : 16 1.41 (etch) : 740 1.46 (lenny) : 2442 1.49 (squeeze) : 7912 1.56 (wheezy) : 27436 total submissions : 195697 This makes about 20% running wheezy or older releases. Ansgar
