Breaking init swtich: was Re: sysvinit_3.14-2_source.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

[Hendrik Boom]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 11:31:28AM +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:06, Mark Hindley <mark at hindley.org.uk> wrote:
> > Lorenzo,
> > 
> > Thanks for highlighting this.
> > 
> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 05:18:31PM +0100, lorenzo wrote:
> > > Is this intended?
> > 
> [...]
> > 
> > I also see a possible small benefit.  If individual packages to declared they
> > 
> > Provides: init
> > Protected: yes
> > 
> > the contentious init package could disappear and alternative inits would not
> > need to convince the systemd maintainers that they achieve whatever standard.
> > 
> > Best wishes
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> Hi,
> does this mean (as far as I understand it) if all packages Providing: init
> would have set Protected: yes that I could still switch e.g. openrc for
> runit ? If not, I agree that this should be documented.
> Really appreciate your work, Mark.

Would it help to declare init itself to be protected:yes instead of the
individual packages providing init?
Would that pernit changes that replace one init provider with another?

-- hendrik