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
> > >
]] 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 th
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:24:29 +0100 Ian Jackson
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 scenari
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 sy
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
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:31:51 +0100 Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/"):
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
> > wrote:
> > > As I understand it from reading the threads in the bug and on
> >
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/"):
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
> 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 are
Ian Jackson 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 systemd-shim
> instead.
That's
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
> 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
>>
>> Th
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
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 rejected this change. I woul
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 the
11 matches
Mail list logo
