Didier Kryn <kryn@???> escribió:
[...]
>> I expect the dependency chain should be something like:
>> <daemon> depends on: init, <daemon>-sysv-init | <daemon>-epoch-init
>> | <daemon>-systemd-init | <daemon>-openrc-init |
>> <daemon>-upstart-init
>>
>> And if each of those <daemon>-*-init packages depended on their
>> respective init system, and each of those init systems provide the
>> virtual package "init" (as is the case in Debian and Devuan
>> Jessie), then apt should be able to work out that when installing
>> <daemon> that because sysvinit-core is the package providing init
>> that it must also install <daemon>-sysv-init in order to satisfy
>> the dependency. The problem is whether changing init systems would
>> result in pulling in the new <daemon>-*-init dependency required
>> for the new init system.
>>
>> Thoughts??
>>
>

>     This is the normal way of implementing this kind of multiple  
> alternative dependencies in Debian, AFAIU. The only reason I did not  
> advocate this before is that it would bring in a bunch of new  
> packages each containing only one small file. But this might not be  
> a big deal after all, considering it solves the problem completely,  
> allows to get rid of the irritating systemd service files, and  
> treats all other init systems equally.

>

>     I support this idea.
>                                     Didier

I support it as well, but this implies the extra work of putting the
sysvinit scripts in separate packages, and that's quite a lot of work,
and deepens the Delta with our Upstream (a.k.a. Debian), so when they
fix something (e.g. a bug in Apache) we will need to port that to our
package, instead of just copying their package.

Maybe a compromise solution is to do this for all init systems but
sysvinit, for Jessie, and work on the fully "hairy" dependency chain
for Jessie+1 a.k.a Ascii.

Just my one-and-a-half cents

Envite from beneath the forgotten