Hi,
Tollef Fog Heen:
I am not sure if this matters, but it seems to me that this
procedure depends upon a specific sequence of package uploads
and system upgrades in the field.
It does not. We just don't want to leave the archive in a state where
it's easy to end up with the necessary
On 07/16/14 23:22, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
So we are proposing the following scheme:
a/ Upload a new init package. This is a new, essential package that
will replace sysvinit as the package that ensures your system has an
init system. We want to build this binary package from a package which
]] Harald Dunkel
On 07/16/14 23:22, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
So we are proposing the following scheme:
a/ Upload a new init package. This is a new, essential package that
will replace sysvinit as the package that ensures your system has an
init system. We want to build this binary
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
What are the reasons behind are you going for required and not standard?
A Priority: required package (init) isn't allowed to depend on something
with Priority: standard per policy.
Among even minbase, there are a *lot* of violations of this
particular rule of Policy.
Hi!
2014-07-17 15:27 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org:
A Priority: required package (init) isn't allowed to depend on something
with Priority: standard per policy.
Among even minbase, there are a *lot* of violations of this
particular rule of Policy. There is also nothing in place
Luca Falavigna wrote:
Among even minbase, there are a *lot* of violations of this
particular rule of Policy. There is also nothing in place
checking them.
Actually, there are two tools to check this:
* [4]https://ftp-master.debian.org/override-disparity.gz
Ah, that's new... before this,
2014-07-17 16:31 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org:
* https://ftp-master.debian.org/override-disparity.gz
This is not shown in the PTS, though. If we could get it to show
up there, and maybe DDPO, that could help.
Indeed, it's in yaml format, so I guess it should be easy to
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
On kfreebsd, init would then depend on an optional package as we don't
support arch-specific priorities. That is (IIRC) a policy violation, but
do any practical problems arise from this?
It would be useful to have a comment from one of the debootstrap
maintainers
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 04:53:26PM +0200, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Looking at the policy again, I think extra is (mis)used quite too
often.
Part of the problem could be that dh_make at least at one point (maybe
still does) put extra as defalt Priority in its templates and it
might've gotten
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:10:24PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
Looking at the policy again, I think extra is (mis)used quite too
often.
Part of the problem could be that dh_make at least at one point (maybe
still does) put extra as defalt Priority in its templates and it
might've gotten
Hi all,
We're now at the point where we want to flip the default init system for
Jessie on Linux. A lot of systems have already switched over to systemd
as their init system [0] and the package received a fair amount of
testing and integration work over the last couple of months. This makes
us
Hi,
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
So we are proposing the following scheme:
a/ Upload a new init package. This is a new, essential package that
will replace sysvinit as the package that ensures your system has an
init system. We want to build this binary package from a package which
Am 16.07.2014 23:42, schrieb Ansgar Burchardt:
c/ Upload a new version of the init package which does the actual switch
and changes the order via Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv |
sysvinit-core. Diff[4]
Why do a, and c, in two steps?
We want to have the safety measures in place before making the
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 23:22 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
[...]
New installations
=
The new init package will ensure that systemd-sysv is installed as
default init on Linux and by demoting the priority of sysvinit and
sysvinit-core to optional those packages will not be
Am 17.07.2014 02:31, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 23:22 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
[...]
New installations
=
The new init package will ensure that systemd-sysv is installed as
default init on Linux and by demoting the priority of sysvinit and
sysvinit-core
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 03:05 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 17.07.2014 02:31, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 23:22 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
[...]
New installations
=
The new init package will ensure that systemd-sysv is installed as
default init on
]] Tobias Frost
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 03:05 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
We are planning to update the priority of systemd and systemd-sysv to
required and demoting sysvinit and sysvinit-core to optional.
I'll amend the patch for sysvinit accordingly.
What are the reasons behind are you
]] Ansgar Burchardt
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
So we are proposing the following scheme:
a/ Upload a new init package. This is a new, essential package that
will replace sysvinit as the package that ensures your system has an
init system. We want to build this binary
18 matches
Mail list logo
