On 08/09/14 22:46, lee wrote:
It would seem kinda logical to file the bug against the cd-burning
software because it depends on an init system.
Sort of. It's perfectly reasonable for brasero to Depends: gvfs
(brasero's part of GNOME and gvfs is the "standard" way for GNOME
applications to access the sort of things that brasero needs to access).
It's perfectly reasonable for gvfs to Depends: gvfs-daemons (it's not
immediately obvious from the package descriptions why there's a split in
the first place). It looks reasonable for gvfs-daemon to depend on
udisks2. It even looks kind of reasonable for udisks2 to depend on
logind functionality (which is why it links against libpam-systemd).
Part of the underlying problem is that systemd-logind >= 205, delivered
in Debian as part of the systemd binary package, relies on calls to a
dbus interface of systemd in order to perform operations that
systemd-logind < 204 performed on its own. This change was not done on a
whim of the systemd developers, but (as I mentioned elsethread) in
response to a decision of the kernel cgroups subsystem maintainer (who
is not, to my knowledge, a member of the systemd development team)
regarding the future structure of the cgroups interface.
However, this is probably a more general issue in that a yet unknown
amount of packages suddenly somehow depends on a particular init system.
So it would seem better to file a general meta-bug, like John suggests.
In any case, I very much doubt that any package maintainers will see
this as a bug. Even letting aside the element of convenience, they can
always argue that there is no bug but correctly specified dependencies:
Strictly speaking, that's a valid argument. They don't write the
software; they just package it, and generally speaking they package it
with something as close to upstream's default configuration as is
consistent with it being part of Debian.
[proposed social-contract bug against general]
That's the bug report we need to file, accompanied by a detailed list of
the reasons. The most likely outcome would be that we are being banned.
There is at least one member of the technical committee, and several
prominent Debian Developers, who I believe would *strongly* object to
such a bug report being dismissed out of hand. I therefore think that
filing such a bug report is a good idea, even though I am not remotely
hostile to systemd being the default Linux init system in Debian jessie.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/540e2e3d.40...@zen.co.uk
