On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:19:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Having libpam-systemd depend on "systemd-shim | systemd-sysv" will not > properly > handle systems that already have systemd installed but not systemd-sysv.
I don't think I understand what you mean. What does "having systemd installed" mean, if not that it's being used as the init system? And if it isn't used as the init system (presumably because the user chose no to do that), why is it a good idea to change that? In other words: what isn't handled properly? What should happen, and what does happen? > > That being said, I don't really care much about the init system; sysv worked > > fine for me, and now I apparently have systemd and it doesn't seem to cause > > problems either. > > Given the lack of a massive number of new bug reports against either > systemd packages or the desktop packages depending on them, I suspect > that's the general result, as well: uneventful upgrade to a system > that's still sysvinit-compatible, where we can deal with bugs as they > come up. Yes, and it's good that upgrades are generally smooth, but I don't like the idea to migrate people by default. As long as the other init systems are supported, there's no reason that we should push our users away from them. If there are problems with them that aren't fixed, then we should stop supporting them. As long as that hasn't happened, users should be free to use the other init systems and not be treated as second class. As with any other program that gets installed by default, new users will come with new installations. And in particular, systemd maintainers aren't in a position to tell existing users that they shouldn't be using other init systems. Thanks, Bas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140512165614.gx10...@fmf.nl
