Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/ [and 1 more messages]
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/"):
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 not actually accurate. I just tested [...]
Thanks very much for that information.
Do you agree with Cameron's summary:
Cameron Norman writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/"):
> Also, although the squeeze/wheezy -> jessie bit Ian wrote seems to be
> incorrect, his last point still stands: on a jessie minbase (with init
> shifted to !systemd-sysv), if you install libpam-systemd, your init is
> changed back to systemd.
> So the "systemd-sysv | systemd-shim" bit is either pointless and
> redundant (upgrading to Jessie) or actively disruptive (installation
> of libpam-systemd on jessie+ systems).
* At the moment existing systems are switched from sysvinit to
systemd (unless the administrator takes some action to prevent it).
This is done by other means (involving the init packages), even if
libpam-systemd is not pulled in. Having the init system switch
done by a peripheral package like libpam-systemd is not sensible.
Therefore the existing dependency ordering in libpam-systemd is
unnecessary (and strange) in this situation (supposing that you
think that people upgrading should be switched by default) or
actively harmful (if you think that they should not).
* On a jessie system which has been deliberately set up not to use
systemd, installing a package which pulls in libpam-systemd causes
the system to switch to systemd.
This is not desirable. It is a consequence of the existing
dependency ordering in libpam-systemd.
* There are no other relevant consequences of the dependency
>From which we can conclude that the dependency ordering should be