Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 25.07.2014 16:48, schrieb Dimitri John Ledkov: > In that case, apart from a new name and new source-package, why do we > need two identical "metapackages"? > This seems utterly redundant and more complicated then simply using > sysvinit package for the transition. Ok, whatever. Well, read the

Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
On 25 July 2014 15:28, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Control: severity -1 wishlist > > On 07/25/2014 16:19, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: >> "init" metapackage is marked essential, even though none of the inits >> are currently essential. There are environments in which no init is >> needed, e.g. chroots

Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Michael Biebl
severity 756023 wishlist thanks Hi, Am 25.07.2014 16:19, schrieb Dimitri John Ledkov: > Package: init > Version: 1.20 > Severity: serious > Tags: patch > > Dear Maintainer, > > "init" metapackage is marked essential, even though none of the inits > are currently essential. There are environment

Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Ansgar Burchardt
Control: severity -1 wishlist On 07/25/2014 16:19, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > "init" metapackage is marked essential, even though none of the inits > are currently essential. There are environments in which no init is > needed, e.g. chroots and minimal/exec-only containers (like > docker). Also

Bug#756023: init: Please drop Essential:yes from init metapackage

2014-07-25 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
Package: init Version: 1.20 Severity: serious Tags: patch Dear Maintainer, "init" metapackage is marked essential, even though none of the inits are currently essential. There are environments in which no init is needed, e.g. chroots and minimal/exec-only containers (like docker). Also one should