T.J. Duchene wrote:
>
>
> On 08/07/2015 09:31 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>
>> Trivial as in, somebody has to do it. The whole point of packaging
>> is to automate a lot of the routine things involved in installation.
>>
>> And, because Debian (and presumeably Devuan) don't put stuff in
>> default locations, packaging involves changing the default locations
>> of things.
>>
>> Where this leads is that down the road, we either need a full set of
>> Devuan-specific package maintainers, or everybody is back to
>> compiling and installing from upstream source.
>>
>> Miles Fidelman
>>
>
> Good evening, Miles! =)

Good morning T.J. !
>
> If I might offer an opinion, I do not think that the situation is
> quite that dire. The packages that require init scripts are a tiny
> fraction of the entire repository. For the moment, the scripts Devuan
> needs are still in the Debian archives as Jesse has System 5 support.
>
> Devuan can just replicate them and support them moving forward.
>

Well, maybe. The original poster started with the statement "Currently
Debian packages contains both systemd units and init scripts. However,
Debian developers refused to support several init systems. So it's only
a matter of time when they remove init scripts from packages." If that's
true, then we have problem.

My sense is that systemd is having close to zero effect on upstream code
- most stuff is shipping with traditional sysv init scripts, with some
folks adding systemd units, but most basically ignoring systemd.

If the Debian packagers do what makes sense - i.e., simply tweak sysv
init scripts that come from upstream, and rely on systemd's support for
init scripts, then all is copacetic.

If, instead, they start removing the sysv scripts, and including
homebrew systemd units - then we're in for a mess of rework.

Miles


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra