[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [CTTE #746578] libpam-systemd to switch alternate dependency ordering

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 th​e 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: