Josch, Thanks for this. I feel your pain and am sorry for it.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 01:55:10PM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > Michael Biebl is against this change and I do not see a way to change this. Unless there is a valid technical reason why the approach you are proposing is wrong, then an individual's preference is not a good enough reason for inaction. If there is a technical problem with the proposal, then it should be identified so it can be addressed. Maybe Michael would clarify why he hasn't yet merged the change suggested? > Unless you have another idea, the only practical way forward I see is creating > an extra binary package shipping the insserv program in some location that is > not in $PATH. Whilst I accept that would 'solve' the immediate issue, I am still very reluctant to go down that route. The problem here, as I see it, is that it bakes in the idea that systemd and insserv are incompatible. It would be virtually impossible to move back from that in the future. The MR proposed ensures that systemd and insserv *are* compatible. That seems a step forward worthy of wholehearted. In my view, systemd, insserv, runit, (soon) native openrc and maybe others in the future should co-exist peacefully in Debian. Unnecessary conflicts that obstruct that should not be tolerated. But maybe my ideals are misplaced. Feel free to tell me so, if you want! Best wishes Mark
