On Thursday, 7 May 2020 7:04:17 PM AEST Julien Cristau wrote: > This use of Provides is not acceptable. The systemctl package does not > in any way provide the same functionality / interfaces as the systemd > package, and as such it does not get to pretend that it does and cause > problems to other packages.
I have to challenge that. "systemctl" provides enough functionality to
replace "systemd" inside application containers. Therefore there are
situations where "Provides: systemd" is justified.
Just like "runit" and "supervisor", "systemctl" is a niche package intended
to be used in application containers. It makes little sense to install it to
"normal" (default) systemd-managed system and attempt to do so would warn
admin by prompt to uninstall "systemd". What is the problem with that?
"systemctl" can be useful on SysV managed systems to start/stop services
without SysV init scripts.
These days Debian usability inside application containers should be our
strategic goal that became much closer thanks to "systemctl" package.
It is OK that we have have established "systemd" hegemony. But systemd is not
an answer to everything and I feel that "systemctl" is being penalised for
honest attempt to provide a semi-compatible "systemctl" interface.
Obviously unlike "runit" and "supervisor", "systemctl" can not be installed
side-by-side with "systemd" as that would be much worse than "Provides:
systemd".
Is there are any other options?
> Please stop severity ping-pong on this.
Not until I get an answer that make sense.
--
Best wishes,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right.
-- Winston Churchill
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
