On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:31:40PM +0530, Joachim Breitner wrote: > But then I find that dh_installinit would not install the regular init > script if an upstart job is present, uses a compatibility link > in /etc/init.d and adds a dependency on upstart-job, which seems to be > only provided by upstart. I’m not sure if we want to force all users of > nodm to switch to upstart – or is there an alternative? > > Enrico, what is your level of caring about nodm ATM?
It goes in bursts, mainly depending on when I have customers who would like me to work on it. I've just finished a rewrite so that nodm is now a real package manager, tomorrow I'll do some real world testing and if all goes well, an upload of the new version to unstable. On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:06:45AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Also, I strongly counsel *against* shipping this, or any, upstart job in a > Debian package until this policy bug is *fixed*. The conversation is > ongoing, and deploying such upstart jobs now realistically just runs the > (very high) risk that you'll have more work to do on your package later once > the policy interfaces are refined and implemented. That is fine with me, I'll do that. I must admit that I've just found myself in a rather intense WTF moment, after finding out that the nodm package from the master branch was depending on upstart and not shipping an init.d file. I'm now going to move the upstart work that has been committed (thank you for it, though!) to a separate "upstart" branch, and I'll upload without it for now. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enr...@enricozini.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
