Re: libpam-systemd [Re: Being part of a community and behaving]
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Anthony Towns wrote:
> the systemd maintainers may have wanted to protect systemd users
> tracking unstable from systemd-shim breakage.
This dependency change doesn't install systemd-shim if someone is
already using systemd-sysv. It only installs systemd-shim if someone has
already installed sysvinit-core instead of systemd-sysv.
[...]
> If the bug hadn't been fixed and the release team tried removing
> systemd-shim from jessie, I'd presume the tech ctte would've overruled
> the RC-ness of the bug anyway.
Based on my current understanding of that bug, I would not have voted to
override the Release Team. Furthermore, considering that the maintainers
of systemd-shim did not alter the severity of that bug either, they
treated it as if it were RC as well.
I'm going to stop replying publicly to this thread;[1] if someone feels
strongly about this, and wants to further discuss the rationale, feel
free to discuss this on debian-ctte@lists.debian.org or similar.
1: Yes, I have my own RC bugs that I should be fixing instead of
complaining about motes elsewhere.
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly).
-- Matt Welsh
Reply to: