Re: standalone logind (Re: Bits from the systemd + GNOME sprint)
previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I suspect the latter.
> >
> > Why did I expect any reasonable and balanced discussion! I suspect
> > but haven't mentioned that I expect the reasons for bundling these
> > components together to be on highly questionable grounds.
> >
> Oh, you mentioned that plainly enough.
Really why not quote then, you are an assuming liar and quote the only
contentless part of my email which was a reply to your original
assumption.
>
> A reasonable and balanced discussion may be started when somebody comes
> forward with legitimate technical problems. I did not perceive your
> concerns as such.
>
> * for better or worse, Debian decided on systemd as its future init system.
> As such it's probably going to be Priority: Standard, and Joe+Jane DD
> expect (IMHO entirely reasonably) that it's going to be all there.
>
> * you didn't actually state what the TECHNICAL problem is. "I don't like
> it" is not a technical reason. "Another package will have problems
> replacing | turning off | not installing some part of systemd" is
> (respectively) true but not demonstrated to be relevant | false | not
> deemed relevant given the wide availability of multi-GByte microSD cards
>
> * your signature has already been mentioned. If you state up front that
> you're not interested in a reasonable discussion, don't complain when it
> doesn't happen.
>
I stand by it absolutely. There is no bias there only a deeply
technically founded opinion. What has that got to do with being open
minded and balanced on a point by point technical basis. You are the
one being closed minded and dismissive.
> * last but not least: if you do have a tangible reason for your post, i.e.
> one of your packages doesn't work with the way systemd is packaged,
> kindly tell us which package that is and what you're trying to do.
My first mail stated it. Why do you question it. Look at all the tasks
mentioned in the logind man page some of which are unneeded and
complex and will have affects upon security. Removing logind when
apps expect it is potentially insecure too especially if many are like
you and will not test this possibility. I have avoided root ipv6
exploits due to similar scrutiny. I don't see how you only caring about
functionality and not security or correctness is any reasonable
response.
>
> > I guess there is no unlaborious way to see which programs depend on a
> > particular binary of a given package?
> >
> The people packaging systemd probably (I do not speak for them) did not see
> any good reason to split up these packages, for the reasons I mentioned in
> this and my last email.
Nothing you mentioned touched on that at all. What would best practice
be?
> If this is a real problem for you, kindly speak up
> and tell us why disabling logind with two quick systemctl commands,
> assuming that you _really_ do not need it, is insufficient.
>
See above. Though I didn't know it could be disabled officially like
avahi-daemon so thanks for that. It is still important for an admin to
be able to quickly see what packages may have issues or how to avoid
any unexpected security issues as a result of packages expecting it to
be around.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
"There are two ways of constructing a software design. One is to make
it so simple that there are OBVIOUSLY no deficiencies. And the other is
to make it so complicated that there are no OBVIOUS deficiencies"
Professor C. A. R. Hoare
The 1980 Turing award lecture
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Reply to: