Re: Interesting article on boot ordering

[Bill Nottingham <notting redhat com>]

Enrico Scholz (enrico scholz informatik tu-chemnitz de) said: 
> The main-package has
> 
> | Requires: init(ip-sentinel)
> 
> and there are -sysv and -minit subpackages which are having both
> 
> | Provides: init(ip-sentinel)
> 
> The -minit subpackage is a lightweight package while -sysv requires the
> full initscript bloat (e.g. glib2, sysklogd,...).

You're confusing me here; since when are glib2 and sysklogd
prerequsites of SysVinit?

> A -lsb subpackage
> would be yet more heavyweight (e.g. the entire X11-stuff).

I'm still not sure what you're saying here. LSB init requirements
have very little to do with X11.

> There are some problems with this approach (apt is not very clever in
> choosing the right subpackage), but they are not unsolvable.

But it defeats the point. Having the user pick 'what sort of init
would you like' is *way* too much technical overkill. Find one
way that's best, implement all required features for it. Use that.

> A way exists everytime (linking 'run' to /etc/init.d/<foo>, putting
> 'start' into 'params' and filling 'depends' with the predecessor). But
> it would not make sense to go it. minit and LSB/SysV initscripts are
> having *nothing* in common.

That's going to be a problem; I don't see us dropping LSB support
any time soon.

Bill