Hi Matthew! On 05/23/2017 07:14 PM, Matthew Hoare wrote: > On 23/05/2017, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> I'm not sure why you are reporting this >> bug to Debian in the first place. >> > > I am one of the BunsenLabs developers, the distribution is a theming > and configuration set applied to a Debian base. > > The system from which the report was sent was installed as a Debian > stretch system using `debootstrap` with a post-installation > configuration script [1] applied afterwards.
If it's just a theme, why does it change the distribution name? This sounds a bit misleading to me. A different distribution name should also mean that it's not Debian but a derivative which can have different package versions and thus different bugs. > I can reproduce this issue in a fresh Debian stretch system if > required but I was presuming that an upstream bug report was > appropriate in this case, apologies if I was mistaken. Yes, you should definitely always go this route when reporting bugs, at least when you consider your derivative a distribution on its own. However, the fact that this was not reported against vanilla Debian is not the main reason why I am downgrading this. The main reason is, as explained before, that Debian officially supports only systemd and therefore only issues with systemd are considered release critical, i.e. relevant for the next release. If one of the alternative init systems don't work as expected, it's a pity but actually not release critical. As the init system is a rather fundamental component of a Linux distribution, it affects many other packages, directly or indirectly and it's therefore too much of a burden to provide support for all init systems available in Debian. Although runit is available in Debian, it does not mean that it has to be fully supported. The fact that it is in Debian is merely of the result of Debian's policy to not limit packages from entering the distribution unless the license or other serious concerns prevent it. This policy is a result of Debian's decision to adopt systemd as its default init system [1] as well as the follow up general resolution [2] where Debian Developers decided that providing support for alternative init systems was not mandatory. Furthermore, as also already explained, the problem you have run into cannot really be trivially solved as the installing runit does not replace the running instance of systemd with runit so it is to be expected for commands like 'poweroff' and 'reboot' to not work until the machine has been rebooted. A possible solution would be to modify the runit postinst scripts in a way that it does not automatically overwrite the symlinks for the the above commands until the machine has been rebooted (e.g. by placing a script which is run only once after the system has been first rebooted with runit) so that the 'poweroff' and 'reboot' commands are still sent to systemd. However, the lack of a reply of the runit maintainer to this particular bug report seems to indicate that there is currently no interest for such a solution. Thus, in order to prevent this bug report from blocking the release of Debian Stretch, I have reduced its severity to 'normal'. You are still welcome to propose a patch to address this issue though, it's just not relevant for the upcoming Debian release. Thanks, Adrian > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00281.html > [2] https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003 -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
