Idea for migrating packages away from static boot sequence numbers

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh hmh at
Fri Sep 18 14:33:36 UTC 2009

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> and let the package depend on newer versions of sysv-rc or some
> virtual dependency provided by newer sysv-rc (say sysv-lsb-depend).
> The update-rc.d call would then fail if dependency based boot
> sequencing is not enabled, and the package in question would fail to
> install before the computer is using dependency based boot sequencing.

I don't like this.  We would have second-class citizenship because of it.

> This way the package maintainer get a choice if they want to keep
> supporting the error prone static boot sequence numbers, or switch
> their package to only work with dependency based boot sequencing.
> I do not believe we should implement this right now, but it might be a
> good way forward some time in the future.

I like the idea.  But it has to do the right thing when the package gets
installed in a non-dependency-based system if it is going to be implemented
before dependency-based becomes mandatory.

And yes, I am *all* for dependency-based ordering to be mandatory (note:
this doesn't mean I am for switching away from sysvinit being mandatory, nor
does it have anything to do with parallel boot).

  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

More information about the initscripts-ng-devel mailing list