On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:23 PM Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote:
> Am 03.04.19 um 18:08 schrieb Felipe Sateler: > > Looks like sysvinit-core needs XB-Important: yes to prevent such easy > > removal. > > I though about this too, but on the other hand with "init" we actually > allow users to switch between sysvinit and systemd and adding > XB-Important: yes to sysvinit-core would render "init" moot. > Ah, you are right. I mixed init with systemd-sysv, which does not have the Important flag set. > > I have to say I'm surprised apt prefers uninstalling a package to > satisfy a Recommends over not installing a Recommends and keeping that > package. > Yeah, I that is surprising. Would it make sense to loop the apt maintainers into this? > > > If systemd is the active PID 1, we want libpam-systemd installed > alongside. So far we also considered that users might not have > systemd-sysv installed but instead boot with init=/lib/systemd/systemd. > I have no idea how common that is, so maybe an alternative could be to > move the libpam-systemd Recommends from systemd to systemd-sysv > (alongside the existing libnss-systemd). > Makes a lot of sense to me. > WDYT? Is it too late in the release cycle to make such a change? > I don't know. Most likely we would need a tight dependency on systemd, to ensure at least one pacakge Recommends libpam-systemd. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler
