]] Ansgar Burchardt
My starting point is the following principle:
* Users should not be switched automatically when upgrading.
[...]
Having settled on the above principle, I think it follows that the
dependency ought to be changed.
Except that we have not settled on that
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:43:21PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Ansgar Burchardt
My starting point is the following principle:
* Users should not be switched automatically when upgrading.
[...]
Having settled on the above principle, I think it follows that the
dependency
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
As I understand it from reading the threads in the bug and on
debian-devel, the effect of this would be:
[...]
* squeeze-jessie upgrades which are not already using systemd would
not be switched silently to systemd but would use
Josh Triplett writes (Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/):
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
As I understand it from reading the threads in the bug and on
debian-devel, the effect of this would be:
...
The latter two points
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:31:51 +0100 Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Josh Triplett writes (Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/):
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
As I understand it from reading the threads in the bug
Josh Triplett writes (Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/ [and 1 more
messages]):
Assuming that apt does the right thing with the dependencies reversed,
yes. I outlined several specific scenarios in my response to Steve's
mail, which someone ought to test with a modified libpam-systemd
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:24:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
We know that with such a dependency apt won't install systemd-shim if
systemd is /already/ installed. That leaves the upgrade case. During
upgrade the change in dependency may result in systemd-shim being
installed as well as
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:24:29 +0100 Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Josh Triplett writes (Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/ [and 1 more
messages]):
Assuming that apt does the right thing with the dependencies reversed,
yes. I outlined several specific scenarios in my
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
In #746578, a user requests that the dependency from libpam-systemd to
systemd be changed from
systemd-sysv | systemd-shim
to
systemd-shim | systemd-sysv
The maintainers of libpam-systemd have
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
In #746578, a user requests that the dependency from libpam-systemd to
systemd be changed from
systemd-sysv | systemd-shim
to
In #746578, a user requests that the dependency from libpam-systemd to
systemd be changed from
systemd-sysv | systemd-shim
to
systemd-shim | systemd-sysv
The maintainers of libpam-systemd have rejected this change. I would
like the TC to set out the applicable principle(s), and overrule
11 matches
Mail list logo
