Subject: sysvinit vs. new powerd...

From: Michael Alan Dorman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 14:33:39 -0400

I've got a need for a more sophisticated powerd than the one you
include with sysvinit, so I'm packaging Alessandro Rubini's powerd for
Debian.

One obvious problem presents itself in that the new powerd has the
same name, etc, as the one in sysvinit.  I see four ways to deal with
this, and would like input:

 1) split sysvinit into sysvinit and sysvinit-powerd.  Probably
unpopular.

 2) remove powerd from sysvinit entirely, and make the new powerd
conflict with older versions.  Easy.

 3) make powerd replace sysvinit powerd.  Also not unreasonable, but
upgrading sysvinit could do unexpected things.

 4) use update-alternatives to allow selecting one.  I don't know
exactly what this entails.

I favor #2 for its simplicity.  I feel certain David Engel would
complain about #1 (and rightly so, IMHO).  #3 is really just a more
dangerous variant of #2.  I'm not sure what the point of #4 would be.

Have I missed anything?

Mike.
--
"Don't let me make you unhappy by failing to be contrary enough...."

---

From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 23:00:35 +0200 (MET DST)

> conflict with older versions.  Easy.

Yep, I think that is what should be done. I always felt that powerd should
be in a seperate package. If you tell me when your package is ready,
we can coordinate the releases of a new sysvinit and powerd where powerd
would depend on >= versions of the new sysvinit package.

I don't know what to do with users that actually use the old powerd-
but I don't think anybody _is_ using it at the moment.

Mike.
-- 
  Miquel van    | Cistron Internet Services   --    Alphen aan den Rijn.
  Smoorenburg,  | mailto:[email-masked]          http://www.cistron.nl/
[email-masked] | Tel: +31-172-419445 (Voice) 430979 (Fax) 442580 (Data)

---

From: [email-masked] (David Engel)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:52:42 -0500 (CDT)

> dangerous variant of #2.  I'm not sure what the point of #4 would be.

I prefer the following approaches:

5) Package your powerd separately and use dpkg-divert to override the
one in sysvinit.

6) Same as 5.  When/if enough people like the new version, ask Miquel
to incorporate it into sysvinit.

David
-- 
David Engel                        Optical Data Systems, Inc.
[email-masked]                      1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400                     Richardson, TX  75081

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 02:04 BST

Michael Alan Dorman writes ("sysvinit vs. new powerd..."):
...
> conflict with older versions.  Easy.
...
> upgrading sysvinit could do unexpected things.
...
> exactly what this entails.

I have no knowledge about powerd as a specific application, but when
you've decided what the final arrangement of packages should be
*please* come and ask me *before* releasing any new packages with
funky things in the control files.

If you tell me what the state of the packages is now and what you want
it to be I'll tell you what to put in the control files.

If you don't ask me you'll probably tie yourself in knots.

Ian "writing a manual, honest" Jackson.

---

From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:41:54 +0200 (MET DST)

> If you don't ask me you'll probably tie yourself in knots.

I was thinking about releasing a sysvinit without the powerd included
(nobody I know uses the vanilla version anyway). This would be
sysvinit-2.63-1. Nothing would change in the sysvinit control file.
I do not plan to put a Recommends: powerd in the sysvinit control file.

The powerd control file would then have something like:

Package: foo-powerd
Provides: powerd
Depends: sysvinit (>= 2.63-1)

This would work since sysvinit is an essential package and already installed
anyway. The only thing that would happen if a seperate powerd package is
installed that dpkg forces one to upgrade sysvinit as well, which is
exactly what we want. Right?

Mike.

---

From: Michael Alan Dorman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 10:55:57 -0400

>I prefer the following approaches:

Do you have any objections to Mike's decision to remove powerd from
sysvinit entirely?

Mike.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Engel)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:11:40 -0500 (CDT)

> Do you have any objections to Mike's decision to remove powerd from

Nope.

David

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 02:34 BST

Miquel van Smoorenburg writes ("Re: sysvinit vs. new powerd..."):
...
> exactly what we want. Right?

No, this won't work.  `Depends' lines don't take effect until the
package has already been unpacked, and in any case you don't want a
dependency on a later version.  There's no reason why someone with an
earlier version can't just have the old files overwritten, right ?

Michael Alan Dorman writes ("Re: sysvinit vs. new powerd... "):
...
> Assuming that 2.62 is the version that has been divested of powerd,
> this should only require a conflicts with sysvinit (<=2.61) to work
> right, no?

No, this is worse.  It will break upgrades.

If all you want is for powerd to be able to take over some files from
sysvinit then you can say `Replaces: sysvinit (<=2.61)'.  This will
silence dpkg's moans about file overwriting, and when sysvinit is
upgraded to the version without the files all will still be well.

Ian.