[Pkg-kbd-devel] Bug#542225: kbd: Incorrect provides and dependencies in init.d script

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Michael Schutte]
> The problem you describe only occurs when a user replaces one
> console utility package by the other, and the old package isn't
> purged in this process.  Both scripts do pretty much the same thing,
> and they are mutually exclusive, so only one of them will ever be
> executed during init.

Yes, and it will block migration from the old to the new package for
everyone using dependency based boot sequencing.

> Do you think such a mechanism is a good idea (and its implementation
> feasible) at all?  Maybe there are some dangers or serious problems
> I miss completely.

I'm not sure.  I suggest creating a wishlist bug for insserv with this
proposal, and let me pass it by the insserv upstream to get his
opinion.

> And then I don't like the idea of adding more and more 'reverse
> dependencies' to the X-Start-Before: line as I grep the whole
> archive from time to time, or users report bugs.

In my experience, there are very few scripts a given script need to
declare a relationship to.  Of course one could ask for the other
packages to add dependencies instead of using reverse dependencies,
and in most cases it make sense. :)

> Yup, I thought about that and may in fact take this path eventually.
> There are only few packages that would have to be changed from
> console-screen to (say) $console requirements.  I nonetheless think
> it isn't really nice to create a new virtual facility for two init
> scripts of which one won't even run if the other one does.

Sure, a new virtual facility should only be created because it make
sense to let several scripts provide the service, not to work around
LSB issues with only two scripts.

Happy hacking,
-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen