On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:14:01 -0700 Cameron Norman
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > I'm pulling a quote from the bottom of Steve's mail to the top, to call
> > attention to a new and critical point that I didn't see raised anywhere
> > in the debian-devel discuss
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 17:14 -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Personally, in this case, I'd argue that the desirable dependency (which
> > we can't easily express) would be "sysvinit-core ? systemd-shim :
> > systemd-sysv".
>
> To be more pre
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I'm pulling a quote from the bottom of Steve's mail to the top, to call
> attention to a new and critical point that I didn't see raised anywhere
> in the debian-devel discussion:
>
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:23:18 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 12:23 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:36:54AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > I agree completely that it doesn't make sense for the transition from
> > sysvinit to systemd to take place via libpam-systemd rather than via
> > some core package like "in
I'm pulling a quote from the bottom of Steve's mail to the top, to call
attention to a new and critical point that I didn't see raised anywhere
in the debian-devel discussion:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:23:18 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> If we decide that init *should* be automatically changed on up
Steve Langasek writes:
> If the systemd-shim package is currently broken and should not be
> allowed to satisfy the libpam-systemd dependency, then that should be
> expressed as a release-critical bug keeping it out of the release, *not*
> by the systemd maintainers placing conditions on the orde
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:36:54AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I conceptually dislike the user experience of switching init systems
> > because the user upgraded some random package that, from their
> > perspective, doesn't appear relate
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:36:53AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I conceptually dislike the user experience of switching init systems
> > because the user upgraded some random package that, from their
> > perspective, doesn't appear relate
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote:
> I conceptually dislike the user experience of switching init systems
> because the user upgraded some random package that, from their
> perspective, doesn't appear related to the init system. I feel like
> switching init systems should be a
I conceptually dislike the user experience of switching init systems
because the user upgraded some random package that, from their
perspective, doesn't appear related to the init system. I feel like
switching init systems should be a more intentional action than that.
There is a variety of local
I'd like to call attention to a few reasons why libpam-systemd should
continue to depend on "systemd-sysv | systemd-shim".
First, see bugs like 761389 (and others on cgmanager and systemd-shim),
which are still popping up regularly. While I acknowledge that people
are actively working on the shim
11 matches
Mail list logo
