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

Bug#931631: Wrong dependency on virtual logind packages

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 12:44:20AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 08.07.19 um 18:13 schrieb Colin Watson:
> > CCing Adam, who suggested the default-logind | logind part of this; I
> > know very little about elogind myself.
> > 
> > I can see how an "artificial" dependency like this might make sense to
> > avoid libpam-systemd being pulled in for people who aren't using
> > systemd, though, even if other logind implementations don't provide the
> > same session registration features.
> Well, if that is the sole reason why that alternative dependency was
> added, then this is a poor choice.

Assuming that my attempt to restate the requirement is correct, what's
your concrete alternative proposal, implementable in openssh, that also
satisfies that requirement?  I'm not enthusiastic about simply reverting
the change from #923199, unless the people who requested it tell me that
it's not in fact needed.

> Also, it would have been a good idea to mention that in the changelog.

To be fair I'm reverse-engineering this from bug records and the like;
it didn't seem a big deal to me at the time, so I didn't work out all
the details sufficiently to describe them in the changelog.

> What you really want to fix is apt trying to satisfy a recommends over
> uninstalling/installing a new init system (which tbh I find kinda odd,
> that apt prefers to uninstall a package over not installing a recommends).

It's not in my power to change apt's dependency resolution in a
reasonable time frame.

> And also, this alternative dependency is completely useless if you don't
> already have elogind installed, which I suspect is the case (about 1%
> have sysvinit installed, the number for elogind is only statistic noise).

Well, I may also have made a wrong guess as to the underlying reason for
the request, so hopefully Adam can fill in more detail.

Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Reply to: