Bug#1132024: Add insserv-bin binary package with /usr/libexec/insserv for easily creating Hurd chroots

[Ian Jackson]

Mark Hindley writes ("Bug#1132024: Add insserv-bin binary package with /usr/libexec/insserv for easily creating Hurd chroots"):
> Unless there is a valid technical reason why the approach you are
> proposing is wrong, then an individual's preference is not a good
> enough reason for inaction. If there is a technical problem with the
> proposal, then it should be identified so it can be addressed.

I agree with this.

> Maybe
> Michael would clarify why he hasn't yet merged the change suggested?

I don't think this is actionable by us in the init diversity team.

Johannes, can you please remind where the existing discussions were?
In particular, you say Michael Biebl is against this change.  Can you
provide references?

I think an actionable next step might be to try to summarise the
situation, and send the init-system-helpers maintainer a rather formal
message setting out the options and inviting them to reconsider and/or
expand on their reasoning.

Depending on the response, and our analysis of it, we could change our
mind about our package split; ask for mediation; ask the TC; or decide
we don't want to pick a fight and do a suboptimal thing.

> Whilst I accept that would 'solve' the immediate issue, I am still
> very reluctant to go down that route. The problem here, as I see it,
> is that it bakes in the idea that systemd and insserv are
> incompatible. It would be virtually impossible to move back from
> that in the future. The MR proposed ensures that systemd and insserv
> *are* compatible. That seems a step forward worthy of wholehearted.

I tend to agree with this.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.  

Pronouns: they/he.  If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.