Re: End of hypocrisy ?
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:17:02PM CEST, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> said:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> wrote:
> > Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, that's what I meant, sysvinit is not broken.
> >
> > I rather agree. But the opponents cite corner cases where the
> > previous security model doesn't handle every possible access case.
> >
> > I always hate it when people say such vague statements such as
> > "modern" or "is broken" without actually saying why it is one way or
> > the other. After reading months of arguments these next two postings
> > were the first real postings I had read with any detail in them.
> > Especially the second one.
> >
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00455.html
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00461.html
> >
> > These are things that probably 99.44%[1] of the population hasn't ever
> > needed before. The 99% where everything works for us are all of us
> > crying about the disruption. But for that 0.56% that worried about
> > those corner cases they see the old system as really broken. They are
> > probably right that it is broken for them. But there are better ways
> > to go about improving the system than the unpleasant way that systemd
> > has been rolled out to the community.
>
> Didn't all DEs use consolekit and policykit? IIRC wasn't the CTTE bug
> filed because of a debian-devel@ thread about Gnome depending on
> systemd (because of logind and/or libpam-systemd)?
>
> The problem's that consolekit is abandonware upstream, logind is its
> replacement, policykit removed consolekit support, and logind requires
> systemd as pid 1 (or systemd-shim).
logind requires pam-systemd which as of today version in testing requires systemd-sysv
systemd-shim today is NOT an option. No more. It was *remived* from
the dependencies. And completeley removed,the dependency is not on a
version ot yet in testing. For me that means that systemd developper
want to remove it.
Reply to: