Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> writes: > On 14/12/2020 21:56, Philip Hands wrote: > >> Could I just check if there's a point of common acceptability which both >> sides of this discussion could live with? > > [...] > >> My suggestion for a mutually bearable solution would be that the >> network-manager package could have its dependency on libpam-systemd >> changed to instead be something like: >> >> libpam-systemd | network-manager-nonsystemd > > Is this instead of the logind virtual package? I'm not quite sure what > problem you're trying to solve here, but I'm don't think it generalises > well (you'd end up with potentially lots of package that just Depend on > logind and maybe contain an init script); and without any input from the > network-manager maintainer about why they were unwilling to take the > patch to use the existing virtual package, I'm not sure why this should > be more acceptable. If that were the way things were going, then I'd expect one to end up with a package that bundled all the init scripts, and provided whatever virtual packages etc. required to glue all the bits together somehow. The details of how to do that seemed like things that should be between the people maintaining the two sets of packages, and I wasn't worrying about the details too much, because I was rather hoping that it wouldn't actually be needed. >> If you think this approach is impractical for some reason, please say >> so, because what I have in mind as a better option does rather rely on >> this being available as a plausible fall-back position. > > I'm confused as to why you don't just tell us what your better option is. My better option was that having defined the areas of responsibility by thinking about who'd do what in a split package setup, we might manage to agree that the same people could take the same responsibility for maintaining those bits in the places where they would need to be in the packages as they stand. For that to work, I think the maintainer would have to have the right to declare that they didn't think the experiment was working out (presumably because of drowning in bugs that were not being handled in a sensible time, say) at which point the already agreed split package setup would provide an acceptable plan B. That would hopefully allow the maintainer to relax enough about having some new people co-maintaining some fragments of the package to give space for everyone to demonstrate that it was possible for them to work together. There's nothing specific to NM in any of that BTW, so if other packages are in this position where constructive cooperation really ought to work, but there's just a little too much distrust at present, then maybe you can give this a try there. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature