On Friday, 19 de September de 2014 17:16:11 Josh Triplett escribió:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:44:43 +0100 Ian Jackson
wrote:
> > Package: tech-ctte
>
> > At the risk of generating confusion due to a duplication of threads:
> On the contrary, thank you for moving this to a separate thread.
>
> I
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:24:29 +0100 Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/ [and 1 more
> messages]"):
> > Assuming that apt does the right thing with the dependencies reversed,
> > yes. I outlined several specific scenarios in my response to Steve's
> >
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:24:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We know that with such a dependency apt won't install systemd-shim if
> systemd is /already/ installed. That leaves the upgrade case. During
> upgrade the change in dependency may result in systemd-shim being
> installed as well as sy
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/ [and 1 more
messages]"):
> Assuming that apt does the right thing with the dependencies reversed,
> yes. I outlined several specific scenarios in my response to Steve's
> mail, which someone ought to test with a modified libpam-systemd
>
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:44:43 +0100 Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Package: tech-ctte
>
> At the risk of generating confusion due to a duplication of threads:
On the contrary, thank you for moving this to a separate thread.
I would like to propose that, if the TC addresses this point at all, it
does so s
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:31:51 +0100 Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/"):
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
> > wrote:
> > > As I understand it from reading the threads in the bug and on
> > > debian-devel, the effect of this would b
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:14:01 -0700 Cameron Norman
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett 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 discuss
Paul Hedderly writes ("Re: Bug#762194: Automatic switch to systemd on
wheezy->jessie upgrades"):
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:44:43PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > My view is that users should not be automatically switched when
> > upgrading to jessie. As I said in my intro to #746578:
>
> Just
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:44:43PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> My view is that users should not be automatically switched when
> upgrading to jessie. As I said in my intro to #746578:
>
Just out of interest, had Upstrat been chose as the _default_ init system for
Debian, would you have had the s
Package: tech-ctte
At the risk of generating confusion due to a duplication of threads:
It appears that the answer to #746578 (libpam-systemd dependency) does
not depend on whether users upgrading should be switched to systemd by
default. The current state in jessie is that users are switched by
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/"):
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > As I understand it from reading the threads in the bug and on
> > debian-devel, the effect of this would be:
...
> The latter two points are not actually accurate. I just
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 17:14 -0700, Cameron Norman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Josh Triplett 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 be more pre
Ian Jackson writes:
> As I understand it from reading the threads in the bug and on
> debian-devel, the effect of this would be:
[...]
> * squeeze->jessie upgrades which are not already using systemd would
> not be switched silently to systemd but would use systemd-shim
> instead.
That's
13 matches
Mail list logo
