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

Bug#947847: please install systemd-sysusers using update-alternatives

Svante Signell dijo [Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 08:15:36PM +0100]:
> > It's not like having two competing implementations causes much 
> > harm here.we technically _can_ allow any /bin/systemd-* to be
> > provided by another implementation, that we should (actually, I think
> > we should clearly _not_).
> Of course the name should not be systemd-*. That would conflict with
> systemd upstream, and a lot of other stuff too!

Humh, where did you quote this snippet from? It includes bits from
OdyX's mail, but it's wrapped over itself. It also shows as if it were
my text (which is _not_).

> > /usr/bin/systemd-* is clearly implementation-specific. Now, if we are
> > to allow alternative implementations of /usr/bin/system-brewmycoffee,
> no way!

Please keep on reading for the full paragraph...

> > we should first push to an alternative /usr/bin/brewmycoffee, get the
> > systemd maintainers to "subscribe" to it using our great alternatives
> > system, and provide our /usr/bin/open-brewmycoffee.
> Why should they be subscribing? There are other people within Debian
> who can provide alternatives.

I tend to convey that, if Debian is to support more of one
argument-compatible implementations of brewmycoffee (one of which is
systemd-brewmycoffee), I feel the systemd maintainers should be
sensible and allow its use, via the alternatives system, as

Of course, it is highly likely they will be seen as the reference
implementation and others should attempt to adopt a compatible
interface arguments-wise.

> > And I think that now, that not so many packages have yet adopted
> > systemd-derived facilities, is a great time to set this as a good
> > practice.
> Is this your interpretation of the GR?

It my impression, at least.

Reply to: