Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> writes:
> The tech ctte could've addressed this issue by providing policy guidance
> or by just offering advice, and assuming that the systemd maintainers would
> act on the advice or policy in good faith. Choosing to override the
> systemd maintainers was far from the most friendly available option.
If you go back and read the discussion, the participants came to a well
researched and reasoned conclusion that the proposed change was the
correct one in this case.
Here's a paragraph from Josh Triplett's last message before the vote was
taken. Josh is a proponent of systemd, but not a member of the Debian
systemd team.
I don't see any obvious further steps that need to occur other
than flipping the dependency around. (It might be a good idea
for the libpam-systemd dependency to bump its versioned
dependency on systemd-shim to (>= 8-4), but that's up to the
libpam-systemd maintainers.)
I sent a note offering my apologies to the systemd team and to Tollef in
particular for our rash application of an override before we'd given
them a chance to read, review and respond to the conclusions reached by
the discussion participants.
--
keith.packard@intel.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature