Bug#883573: Reevaluate libpam-systemd systemd-sysv dependency ordering (746578)

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#883573: Reevaluate libpam-systemd systemd-sysv dependency ordering (746578)"):
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2017, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I thus opened bug 883569 against systemd, but mbiebl would like to
> > get permission from the you first.

I think it would be sensible for the TC to explicitly grant or
withhold permission.

> As systemd-shim does not (appear to?) have an active maintainer, and
> this should be moot for stretch->buster, I don't personally see a
> problem. [Perhaps a NEWS entry or something in the release notes might
> be a nice gesture?]

FAOD, I regard myself as a caretaker for system-shim.

> Does anyone have a counter-argument?

I don't.  The argument presented in the head article seem to make
sense to me.  But I don't feel I understand all the implications.

One question I have is about this: "several packages now require just
systemd-sysv".  Can someone refer to some examples, please ?

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.