On Tue, 05 Dec 2017, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > More importantly, several packages now require just systemd-sysv. If > apt is told to install libpam-systemd and such a package in the same > operation (especially in a chroot I'd say, since that's where neither > shim nor sysv is installed), it may fail to resolve dependencies > because it picks systemd-shim first and fails to replace it with > systemd-sysv later. See #883555 for an example.
This is a definitely a bug in apt's resolver, but it wasn't a problem originally because systemd-sysv did not have a Conflicts: systemd-shim. > I thus opened bug 883569 against systemd, but mbiebl would like to > get permission from the you first. As systemd-shim does not (appear to?) have an active maintainer, and this should be moot for stretch->buster, I don't personally see a problem. [Perhaps a NEWS entry or something in the release notes might be a nice gesture?] Does anyone have a counter-argument? -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com Love is... a complex sequence of neurochemical reactions that makes people behave like idiots. It's similar to intoxication, but the hangover's even worse. -- J. Jacques _Questionable Content_ #1039 http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1039
