(Responding quickly to only the part I think I can address well on short notice, without needing to spend a long time thinking it over.) On 11/02/2014 at 07:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> writes: >> systemd-shim 8.2 and 7.1 do not list a dependency on systemd, or >> appear to invoke one indirectly; as far as I recall, no such >> dependency had previously been present, either. Attempting to >> install systemd-shim and remove systemd in a --dry-run does not >> complain. > > That's because the point of systemd-shim is to provide the services > that logind requires without running systemd as PID 1, so that > packages can then depend on logind without requiring systemd be PID > 1. That didn't require a direct dependency on systemd because that > dependency comes in via libpam-systemd or some other route in the > software using logind. > > In other words, the whole point of systemd-shim is to enable the use > of logind. It's not replacing it with something else. ...I'm confused. Assuming you're correct in your description of the purpose of systemd-shim (I could argue that the concept of the package could / should extend to providing "stub" implementations of the interfaces provided by the various services provided by systemd-the-project), then it seems obvious that systemd-shim must necessarily depend on having systemd-the-package installed, since otherwise logind itself would not be installed. However, you've presented this as an explanation of the fact that systemd-shim does not list a "Depends: systemd" - when in fact it would seem to require that systemd-shim *must* list such a dependency. This comes after I pointed out that the package does not list such a dependency, which comes after you (as far as I can tell) claimed that it had always listed such a dependency, which comes after I mentioned that the discussion in bug 765101 seemed to indicate that such an (explicit) dependency would be added. Leaving aside the unnecessarily confusing nomenclature which no one seems interested in trying to clear up even for colloquial use, I can't make any sense out of this. Could you try to explain it more clearly? (Not necessarily on-(this-)list, unless you think others might be interested. I'm on -user, -devel, -project, -policy, and -mentors, as well as here.) -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature