pending patches to sysvinit and lsb packages

Adam Borowski kilobyte at
Sat May 7 12:55:54 BST 2022

On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 10:14:11AM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 07:09:21AM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > > On the other hand, perhaps we'd want to merge lsb-base into sysvinit-utils,
> > > to avoid a transitively-essential package that ships nothing but a 646 byte
> > > script but costs every single Debian installation over 2 orders of magnitude
> > > more in various metadata, dpkg status entries and so on.
> > > 
> > > That'd get rid of src:lsb completely.
> So once lsb-release-minimal has arrived in testing and we happy with the
> implementation

These two are unrelated except for both building from src:lsb.

lsb-release-minimal would replace lsb-release.

sysvinit-utils would subsume lsb-base.

> moving the lsb-base scripts to sysvinit-utils would fix #946399,
> although probably not in the way the reporter wanted.  Or maybe
> moving them to initscripts makes more sense semantically?

init-d-script from sysvinit-utils uses vlog functions from lsb-base,
and is used even on systemd for packages that have an init script
but no .service.  Folks using that would understandably be upset if
they had to pull in the initscripts package.

⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁                            'Russkiy voyennyi korabl, idi nakhuy'

More information about the Debian-init-diversity mailing list