Josh Triplett <[email protected]> writes: > This result concerns me greatly, and I think the technical committee > should take this into account when considering whether to flip the > dependencies of libpam-systemd around.
So, this came up before, and I believe that systemd-shim is not supposed to interfere with systemd with the current version. In other words, I think the existence of the package on the system should be a no-op if the system is booted with systemd. That makes this a minor bug, but not something that's too serious. Am I wrong about this? -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
