Bug#851747: sysvinit_2.96-2.2_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Adam Borowski kilobyte at angband.pl
Fri Mar 20 01:23:10 GMT 2020

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 02:12:59AM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 01:33:49AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 01:24:31AM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > > I expect you to take care of this bug and others if you're now going to
> > > pretent to maintain this package!
> > 
> > You demand a change that requires a lot of work all around the archive,
> I've already proven this is a bullshit excuse. Read the actual bug
> report content.

I'm refusing to discuss that part until you calm down and stop throwing
content-less insults.

> > without providing any reason _why_.
> Section 3.8 can be read here:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#essential-packages

The "Essential" tag has three purposes:
1. must work while unpacked but unconfigured
2. doesn't require an explicit dependency
3. works in postrm purge

What's wanted here is:
> See also third paragraph of 3.5.

# Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they have on other
# packages which are marked Essential (see below), and should not do so
# unless they depend on a particular version of that package.

Without that, we'd need to add explicit dependencies everywhere.  No one
wants multi-page init or .service scripts when a short init-d-script will
suffice.  Making that harder would be a disservice.

⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ in the beginning was the boot and root floppies and they were good.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀                                       -- <willmore> on #linux-sunxi

More information about the Debian-init-diversity mailing list