On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 17:14 -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
Personally, in this case, I'd argue that the desirable dependency (which
we can't easily express) would be sysvinit-core ? systemd-shim :
systemd-sysv.
To
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:14:01 -0700 Cameron Norman camerontnor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
I'm pulling a quote from the bottom of Steve's mail to the top, to call
attention to a new and critical point that I didn't see raised
I'd like to call attention to a few reasons why libpam-systemd should
continue to depend on systemd-sysv | systemd-shim.
First, see bugs like 761389 (and others on cgmanager and systemd-shim),
which are still popping up regularly. While I acknowledge that people
are actively working on the shim
I conceptually dislike the user experience of switching init systems
because the user upgraded some random package that, from their
perspective, doesn't appear related to the init system. I feel like
switching init systems should be a more intentional action than that.
There is a variety of local
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0700 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I conceptually dislike the user experience of switching init systems
because the user upgraded some random package that, from their
perspective, doesn't appear related to the init system. I feel like
switching init systems
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:36:53AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0700 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I conceptually dislike the user experience of switching init systems
because the user upgraded some random package that, from their
perspective, doesn't
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:36:54AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0700 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
I conceptually dislike the user experience of switching init systems
because the user upgraded some random package that, from their
perspective, doesn't
I'm pulling a quote from the bottom of Steve's mail to the top, to call
attention to a new and critical point that I didn't see raised anywhere
in the debian-devel discussion:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:23:18 -0700 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
If we decide that init *should* be
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 12:23 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:36:54AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I agree completely that it doesn't make sense for the transition from
sysvinit to systemd to take place via libpam-systemd rather than via
some core package like init,
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
I'm pulling a quote from the bottom of Steve's mail to the top, to call
attention to a new and critical point that I didn't see raised anywhere
in the debian-devel discussion:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:23:18 -0700 Steve
10 matches
Mail list logo
