Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
>> I've left the library packages alone, since a library's function is
>> usually obvious from the things that depend on it... but in fact you
>> might want the descriptions to comment on the way wtmpdb has a
>> Recommends: libpam-wtmpdb instead of a Depends. It's not obvious why
>> anyone would ever want to install wtmpdb without libpam-wtmpdb (as
>> opposed to just configuring the PAM module "off"),
>
> libpam-wtmpdb is just dead code if its "off". Neither package needs
> the other for working, so I don't think there should be a Depends:
> relation. If the argument was made in favor of the Depends:, then it
> should be in both directions, and then its a policy violation.
If there's no conceivable reason to have wtmpdb without libpam-wtmpdb,
why are they separate packages in the first place? But never mind,
better two than zero.
The other thing I nearly reported as a bug (if I could see a way
towards fixing it) is that the things wtmpdb and its ancestors report
as logins aren't logins. I don't need to have logged in (giving my
password to login or a graphical greeter) for each one, and they
needn't be what the shell classifies as "login shells". It's just
recording (pseudo-)terminal sessions - and it was the fact that such
sessions were logged by wtmp (or something equivalent) that originally
led to people talking about "logging in". But does that mean that a
system without libpam-wtmpdb doesn't have any logins?
If you look closely at it, the word's hopelessly ambiguous, but the
fix is probably "don't do that, then".
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
