Tollef Fog Heen [2014-10-21 19:19 +0200]: > > I would be particularly interested in your take on the analysis that Steve > > Langasek posted to the debian-devel thread on why listing systemd-shim as > > the first alternative dependency for libpam-systemd makes sense and should > > not cause any negative effects for systemd users. > > In a steady state, this would probably be ok. However, we've so far seen > two instances of -shim breaking for systemd users > (https://bugs.debian.org/746242 and https://bugs.debian.org/765101), by > shipping outdated security policies. We are worried that this will > happen again on future updates of systemd.
8-4 now eliminates the copied d-bus policy entirely. This was by and large a leftover when Ubuntu had the split systemd-services, and other than that there was one remaining delta in the policy which we discussed yesterday and found to be unnecessary (and detrimental). AFAICS this was the only potential cause of regression of having systemd-shim installed when running systemd as pid 1, and I'm glad it's gone now. So 8-4 should now indeed be completely inert in that case. Of course there are still a lot of bug reports *in* -shim, i. e. which hit when you run with sysvinit or upstart. But that's the opposite case of what you were concerned about, right? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
