I'm dropping firstname.lastname@example.org from the recipients list as I think it
the discussion is not relevant for that list anymore.
On 08/04/2018 16:20, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 at 08:26:13 -0600, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
>> the package is dbus-broker, a replacement for dbus-deamon. You may have
>> heard of it: there has been a short exchange about its packaging for
>> Debian with its developers with the Debian dbus maintainers in Cc.
> Sorry, I didn't see that conversation until now. Please use the role address
> @packages.debian.org if you want to reach package maintainers:
Will do, thanks. I thought I added all maintainers individual addresses
at some point in the discussion, but probably I didn't...
> If dbus-broker is uploaded to Debian as an optional dbus-daemon
> replacement, it will definitely need to be coordinated with the dbus
> source package. Having the two packages coexist is probably not going to
> be straightforward to set up, and if any diversions, alternatives etc.
> are going on, all maintainers of the dbus package will need to be aware
> of them.
I have the package ready, and it works fine without any diversion,
alternatives or other trickery. It has been surprisingly easy, indeed.
You can get the package here:
It works fine minus replacing dbus-deamon for the user bus, which
prompted the email at the origin of this thread. It needs to be done
manually (see README.Debian) or installing a
symlink. I don't know what's the best strategy, yet.
I'm happy to work with the dbus maintainers to fix any issue.
Incidentally, I will be looking for a sponsor to upload the package to
unstable as soon as I figure out how to solve the above minor issue. It
would be great if someone among the dbus maintainers could act as sponsor.
> I do not expect that dbus-broker will be compatible with every D-Bus
> service in Debian. The one incompatibility that I'm reasonably sure exists
> is that if the Exec= for an activatable service points to a command that
> will fork (background itself) and exit 0, dbus-daemon tolerates this
> (at the cost of worse error behaviour because it cannot tell whether
> the service subsequently fails), while dbus-broker almost certainly does
> not. This is inadvisable behaviour even with the reference dbus-daemon,
> so I'd consider it to be a bug in the service, but unfortunately it can't
> be detected statically.
That would need to be investigated indeed. So far the package works
well on a couple of very minimal installs I tried it on.
Pkg-utopia-maintainers mailing list