On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 09:47:34AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 07 Mar 2019 at 17:07:18 -0400, David Bremner wrote: > > Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> writes: > > > Are there still many packages, that don't rely on systemd timer units? > > > > Presumably packages that work without systemd, but still need to > > periodic activity? > > Default installations of Debian boot with systemd, and if a sysadmin > chooses to switch to another init system, it's up to them to replace > its functionality (or at least the parts of its functionality they > want). Needing to install anacron in addition to sysvinit seems > reasonable.
Yeah, but it's not something that should require a manual action -- especially considering that implementing this well is easy. > Maybe task-desktop should depend on systemd-sysv | anacron? Right, but with the reversed order. This might be a bit unobvious, but: • on all systemd installs, the dependency is moot (no matter the order) • on non-systemd, your ordering would make apt try to switch inits instead of pulling in anacron • the only case where non-first dependencies are ignored, B-Deps on official buildds, doesn't matter for a task package > That doesn't *necessarily* mean you need anacron, or even cron. Many > cron jobs now have a corresponding systemd timer; if you are running > systemd, the cron job starts, detects that it is unnecessary, and exits, > which is an overly-complicated way to do nothing. Which raises a question: why would we want that redundant systemd timer? The cron job can serve everyone, timer only systemd users. Twice the work, twice as many configurations to test -- for no gain. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Have you accepted Khorne as your lord and saviour? ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀