On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 09:51:56AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 22:56:57 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > > Could I just check if there's a point of common acceptability which both > > sides of this discussion could live with? > > > > libpam-systemd | network-manager-nonsystemd > > Presumably this is an optimized form of what we perhaps conceptually mean: > > default-logind | logind, > systemd-sysv | network-manager-nonsystemd, > > i.e. it needs a logind implementation (preferably our default, which we > happen to know is systemd's), plus either systemd or some glue to support > running the daemon without systemd? > > (I agree that the optimized form is clearer and probably less work for > apt's resolver than the unoptimized form, as long as systemd being our > default is not in doubt - but I'm mentioning the unoptimized form because > I think it might illustrate the motivation better.)
Actually, I think the long form is clearer both semantically and in that it clearly separates the functionality of the options. Mark