Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au> writes: > The tech ctte could've addressed this issue by providing policy guidance > or by just offering advice, and assuming that the systemd maintainers would > act on the advice or policy in good faith. Choosing to override the > systemd maintainers was far from the most friendly available option.
If you go back and read the discussion, the participants came to a well researched and reasoned conclusion that the proposed change was the correct one in this case. Here's a paragraph from Josh Triplett's last message before the vote was taken. Josh is a proponent of systemd, but not a member of the Debian systemd team. I don't see any obvious further steps that need to occur other than flipping the dependency around. (It might be a good idea for the libpam-systemd dependency to bump its versioned dependency on systemd-shim to (>= 8-4), but that's up to the libpam-systemd maintainers.) I sent a note offering my apologies to the systemd team and to Tollef in particular for our rash application of an override before we'd given them a chance to read, review and respond to the conclusions reached by the discussion participants. -- keith.pack...@intel.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature