On 25 July 2014 15:28, Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> wrote: > Control: severity -1 wishlist > > On 07/25/2014 16:19, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: >> "init" metapackage is marked essential, even though none of the inits >> are currently essential. There are environments in which no init is >> needed, e.g. chroots and minimal/exec-only containers (like >> docker). Also one shouldn't be making 3 inits transitively essential, >> when they currently are not. > > They are already transitively essential: > > Package: sysvinit > Version: 2.88dsf-53.2 > Essential: yes > [...] > Pre-Depends: sysvinit-core | upstart | systemd-sysv > > init is intended to replace the sysvinit package; it doesn't change > anything about init systems being essential or not. >
In that case, apart from a new name and new source-package, why do we need two identical "metapackages"? This seems utterly redundant and more complicated then simply using sysvinit package for the transition. Ok, whatever. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
