>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> writes:
Michael> Tbh, I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect from me. Michael> I guess I already provided my feedback here and mentioned Michael> what kind of solution I prefer. I can repeat this in this Michael> bug report, but I'm not sure if this is helpful. Are you referring to the idea of using libsystemd0 and having elogind use the same dbus interface so be able to reuse libsystemd0? If so, Mark explained why that didn't work in #940034. I think when you originally raised the concern Mark may not have entirely understood what you were thinking about. But at least if I characterized things correctly above, Mark did fully explore that option in #940034. A brief summary is that libelogind0 does basically use the same dbus interface as libsystemd0. However, libsystemd0's interface requirements extends beyond dbus; there are a number of functions that for example are implemented purely in terms of cgroup membership tests. Elogind's interface diverges among other reasons because elogind has a different cgroup hierarchy. I guess there's one way that we could use lybsystemd0 while running elogind. If libsystemd0 were patched to understand both the elogind and systemd cgroup interfaces, I suspect that would be enough that you could use libsystemd0 at least for applications that do not want elogind specific functionality. I suspect such patches are small, but my presumption is that the systemd maintainers would not want to carry such patches. Exploring those patches hasn't really been done I think because everyone involved assumed that would not be the direction the systemd maintainers would want to go. So, what answer would I expect? A number of possibilities spring to mind: 1) "I haven't read Mark's analysis of why libsystemd can't be used and am not likely to have time right now. I regret that I cannot help." 2) "Ah, I understand, but I don't have any ideas of how to fix this; perhaps something will come out of the debian-devel discussion." 3) "Mark missed something important; you could get lybsystemd to work if you just did X." I guess you could also say that the Debian maintainers should rewrite elogind to use systemd's interfaces, although honestly it seems like that's a huge burden to try and stick on package maintainers. Upstream, elogind wanted the integration point to be the elogind library API. They made their library ABI compatible for us, but my understanding is that they designed their product so that you'd build a given app against either libsystemd0 or libelogind0... I understand that our dependency management makes it tricky to do multiple builds of the related apps to make that work well. It's totally fine if you don't have answers. My hope is that you will take the time to realize that Mark seriously considered your advice and tried to make it work. And also, if you do have bright ideas, please share.:-) Thanks for listening.