On Sunday, 7 de September de 2014 23:45:12 David Weinehall escribió: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:37:12PM -0700, Cameron Norman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Noel Torres wrote: > > >> So we are clearly failing to follow the least surprise (for the user) > > >> path. > > >> > > >> Should not logind depend on systemd-shim | systemd-sysv instead? > > > > > > No. Systemd is the default init system. The default dependencies should > > > reflect that. > > > > It has already been explained that it being the default makes the > > order switching irrelevant for what you recommend. If people are using > > the default init, the dependency will already be satisfied and life > > will not be disrupted. The same thing should happen if people are > > using a different init: that decision should be maintained unless they > > manually uninstall the package that satisfies the init package's > > dependency. > > Most Debian systems aren't using sysvinit by active choice, but because > it was the default when they installed their machines, so this argument > doesn't really make sense.
Does that mean that we can happily break their hand made configurations for their was-default current init system? If our priorities are free software and _our users_ of course not. Regards Noel er Envite
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
