Bug#132542: sysvinit: please make /etc/init.d/rcS a conffile

[KatolaZ]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 09:28:38PM +0000, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> 
> [2019-01-15 17:35] Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser at tarent.de>
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I can tell, /sbin/init invocation is late enough.  Usrmerge is
> > > coming. /usr is mounted by initramfs since initramfs-tools=0.117 (25 Sep 2014):
> >
> > The latter is okay for systems booted with initramfs. But I
> > recall that it was decided some not too long time ago that
> > people not using it should ensure their /usr is available
> > by themselves.
> >
> > I do not agree with usrmerge, and I fully expect to be able
> > to use Debian without that systemd-originating concept.
> >
> > But I agree it’s “probably” late enough, although nice to be
> > considerate to people whose systems aren’t.
> 
> > [Pierre Ynard]
> > Also, what is the policy about /usr/libexec/ regarding
> > architecture-dependent and -independent executables?
> 
> FHS uses term "binaries". I believe scripts qualify too, since /lib is
> explicitly for "shared libraries and kernel modules".  Installation of
> {rc, rcS} into either /lib or /etc is violation of FHS.
> 
> > [Pierre Ynard]
> > My personal feelings here would be similar to Thorsten's, but what I
> > would put forward is that considering how critical a component of the
> > system init is, perhaps it's best to strive for robustness for now.
> 
> Wow. So strong reaction. Fine. Collegues, I understand your attitude.
> You have some setup, with separate / and /usr, without initramfs, and
> you do not want change anything.
> 
>   Okay. I moved {rc, rcS} to /lib (see commit 51170798), change will be
>   in 2.93-4 (due in few days). Sysvinit will *not* assume, that /usr is
>   mounted at /sbin/init invocation in Buster. I promise.
> 
> But what next? Assumption of mounted /usr simplify things.  You can take
> a look at #551555, but I do not think this is singular case. Two-part
> mount process complicates initscripts for, well, what?
> 
> I do understand dislike of initramfs, but I do not understand why
> separate / and /usr. So,
> 
>  * what are benefits of setup without initramfs *and* with separate /usr
>    partition on *fresh installation*?
>  * what are your arguments aganist usrmerge?
> 
> PS. No offense intended to anybody. Sorry, if my previous emails felt
> rude.
> 

I don't think this is the place to discuss the pros and cons of
separate / and /usr, TBH. And at this point in time is not even so
straightforward to "assume a mounted /usr", IMHO.

If we cannot put the script under /lib/init, let's leave it under
/etc/init.d, or, maybe better, let's put it under /bin, and link it
from /etc/init.d. After all, it's an executable that is needed at boot
time, so having it under /bin looks totally right, and linking it from
/etc/init.d helps avoiding unexpected breakages upon upgrades.

My2Cents

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[     "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[       @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[     @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-init-diversity/attachments/20190118/57b43572/attachment.sig>