]] Martin Pitt > Tollef Fog Heen [2014-10-21 19:19 +0200]: > > > I would be particularly interested in your take on the analysis that Steve > > > Langasek posted to the debian-devel thread on why listing systemd-shim as > > > the first alternative dependency for libpam-systemd makes sense and should > > > not cause any negative effects for systemd users. > > > > In a steady state, this would probably be ok. However, we've so far seen > > two instances of -shim breaking for systemd users > > (https://bugs.debian.org/746242 and https://bugs.debian.org/765101), by > > shipping outdated security policies. We are worried that this will > > happen again on future updates of systemd. > > 8-4 now eliminates the copied d-bus policy entirely. This was by and > large a leftover when Ubuntu had the split systemd-services, and other > than that there was one remaining delta in the policy which we > discussed yesterday and found to be unnecessary (and detrimental).
That is good to hear. I'm hoping you're right there aren't any other ways for it to regress for non-shim users. > Of course there are still a lot of bug reports *in* -shim, i. e. which > hit when you run with sysvinit or upstart. But that's the opposite > case of what you were concerned about, right? Indeed. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
