Bug#746578: Reasons to keep systemd-sysv as the first alternative
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> If the systemd-shim package is currently broken and should not be
> allowed to satisfy the libpam-systemd dependency, then that should be
> expressed as a release-critical bug keeping it out of the release, *not*
> by the systemd maintainers placing conditions on the ordering of the
> alternative dependencies. The correct way to avoid libpam-systemd
> triggering a switch of init system is for libpam-systemd to list the
> conservative alternative first in the dependency list.
> If we decide that init should not be automatically changed on
> upgrade[1], then it should not be automatically changed on upgrade for
> /any/ users, including those who have desktop software installed. The
> way to accomplish this is to list systemd-shim as the first alternative
> dep.
> If we decide that init *should* be automatically changed on upgrade,
> then the ordering of the dependencies on libpam-systemd is immaterial
> except in the specific case that someone has upgraded to (or newly
> installed) jessie, selected an init system other than the default, and
> subsequently installed a desktop environment on a system that didn't
> initially have one. In this case, installing the DE *definitely* should
> not override the user's explicit selection of init system.
> In both cases, the way to achieve the desired result is for
> libpam-systemd to depend on systemd-shim | systemd-sysv, *not* on
> systemd-sysv | systemd-shim.
Yeah, this exactly. So far as I can tell, Steve's analysis is correct,
and means that we should list systemd-shim first.
I understand the sensitivity to bugs here, but basically some users are
going to be confused either way. I believe listing systemd-shim first is
conceptually correct due to the implications for the various scenarios
Steve lays out, and we'll need to deal with bugs by assigning them to the
appropriate package and setting the severity of those bugs as is
appropriate.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: