Your message had a Version: pseudo-header with an invalid package
version:
systemctl/1.4.4181-1 elogind/241.3-1+debian3
please either use found or fixed to the control server with a correct
version, or reply to this report indicating the correct version so the
maintainer (or someone else) can correct it for you.
Subject: systemctl,elogind: No more co-installable
Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 04:27:42 +0200
Package: systemctl,elogind
Severity: important
Version: systemctl/1.4.4181-1 elogind/241.3-1+debian3
Hi,
since the upload of systemctl/1.4.4181-1, systemctl "Provides: systemd"
which IMO is generally a good thing.
But since elogin "Conflicts" with systemd, these both tools, which
provide systemd replacements are no more co-installable — which is a bad
thing.
I currently don't see a satisfying solution for that, but it would be
nice if both package maintainers could come up with a solution which
still makes sure, elogind and systemd are not installed in parallel, but
systemctl and elogind can be continued to be installed together.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (600, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (110, 'experimental'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'buildd-experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 5.5.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
Subject: Re: Bug#959920: systemctl,elogind: No more co-installable
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 04:38:26 +0200
Hi,
Axel Beckert wrote:
> I currently don't see a satisfying solution for that, [...]
actually I just came up with an idea which would also solve #959828.
But unfortunately it requires cooperation from the systemd package
maintainers — which from my experience makes chances rather low that
this will be implemented.
Anyway, here's the idea:
If the systemd package would provide Provides for at least those
interface also offered by alternatives (e.g. systemd-systemctl,
systemd-logind), then elogind would just need to have to Conflict with
"systemd-logind" and systemd-systemctl would just need to Provide
"systemd-systemctl" or similar. And they would be co-installable
again, because they both provide replacements for different interfaces
of systemd.
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <[email protected]>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Subject: Re: Bug#959920: systemctl,elogind: No more co-installable
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 09:52:18 +0100
Axelm,
Thanks for this.
I haven't used systemctl myself, but it clearly has similar usage case to
elogind so it would be ideal if they were coinstallable. I am very happy to work
to find a solution that provides that.
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 04:38:26AM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Axel Beckert wrote:
> > I currently don't see a satisfying solution for that, [...]
>
> actually I just came up with an idea which would also solve #959828.
> But unfortunately it requires cooperation from the systemd package
> maintainers — which from my experience makes chances rather low that
> this will be implemented.
>
> Anyway, here's the idea:
>
> If the systemd package would provide Provides for at least those
> interface also offered by alternatives (e.g. systemd-systemctl,
> systemd-logind), then elogind would just need to have to Conflict with
> "systemd-logind" and systemd-systemctl would just need to Provide
> "systemd-systemctl" or similar. And they would be co-installable
> again, because they both provide replacements for different interfaces
> of systemd.
This already partially exists in that the logind and default-logind virtual
packages are in use to resolve the libpam-systemd libpam-elogind issue.
However, that does not help in this case. elogind has to conflict with systemd
as they include some duplicate files. I have to admit to being less convinced by
the systemctl Provides: systemd. I understand the idea behind it, but systemd is
much (much, much!) more than systemctl(1). Wouldn't having systemctl Conflicts:
and Replaces: systemd be sufficient? AFAICS, that would restore the
coinstallability with elogind and resolve #959828?
Mark
Subject: Re: Bug#959920: systemctl,elogind: No more co-installable
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 10:38:53 +0100
Dimitry,
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 09:52:18AM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> However, that does not help in this case. elogind has to conflict with systemd
> as they include some duplicate files. I have to admit to being less convinced by
> the systemctl Provides: systemd. I understand the idea behind it, but systemd is
> much (much, much!) more than systemctl(1). Wouldn't having systemctl Conflicts:
> and Replaces: systemd be sufficient? AFAICS, that would restore the
> coinstallability with elogind and resolve #959828?
I have just found #959174 and now understand more fully your motivation for
adding Provides: systemd to systemctl. I sympathise and have come across a
number of similar (unresolved) situations -- see #935304 for example.
And the common systemd-tmpfiles/opentmpfiles interface remains unresolved in
#952897.
Best wishes
Mark
Subject: Re: Bug#959920: systemctl,elogind: No more co-installable
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 12:21:24 +0200 (CEST)
On Thu, 7 May 2020, Mark Hindley wrote:
> I have just found #959174 and now understand more fully your motivation for
> adding Provides: systemd to systemctl. I sympathise and have come across a
OUCH!
I think adding the Provides is wrong, as it doesn’t fully provide
everything, but Ondřej is behaving very aggressively and uncon‐
structive here so… ☹ Debian has become an unwelcome place if you
actually wish for the “universal operating system” ☹
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg
Subject: Re: Bug#959920: systemctl,elogind: No more co-installable
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 12:44:51 +0200
Hi Mark,
Mark Hindley wrote:
> I haven't used systemctl myself, but it clearly has similar usage case to
> elogind so it would be ideal if they were coinstallable.
As far as I understand it from the package descriptions (and really
not more than that), they're providing quite some different parts of
the plethora of systemd functionality:
* elogind mostly provides the session manager functionality (i.e.
systemd-logind), i.e. is only related to providing additional
functionality around user logins, cron sessions, etc.
* systemctl mostly provides the binary "systemctl" which is related to
controlling services, i.e. a part of the init system functionality.
For me these are two completely different things which are both united in
systemd, but IMHO don't need to.
> > If the systemd package would provide Provides for at least those
> > interface also offered by alternatives (e.g. systemd-systemctl,
> > systemd-logind), then elogind would just need to have to Conflict with
> > "systemd-logind" and systemd-systemctl would just need to Provide
> > "systemd-systemctl" or similar. And they would be co-installable
> > again, because they both provide replacements for different interfaces
> > of systemd.
>
> This already partially exists in that the logind and default-logind virtual
> packages are in use to resolve the libpam-systemd libpam-elogind issue.
Ah, right. But this is only for these two packages, not for whatever
exactly separates libpam-elogind and elogind itself.
> However, that does not help in this case. elogind has to conflict
> with systemd as they include some duplicate files.
*nod*
> I have to admit to being less convinced by the systemctl Provides:
> systemd.
Actually, yes, this solution is far from perfect (and probably far
from good, too), but it's still the right way to go IMHO.
As Dmitry wrote: »on what percentage of interface compatibility
warrants "Provides"«. And I think there is no hard limit, but there
are some percentages which IMHO say clearly yes (e.g. 99%) or clearly
"no" (e.g. 10%). It's though very difficult to determine the
percentage values. E.g. is systemctl providing rather 5% or rather 30% of
systemd. ;-)
Actually, In contrary to Dmitry, I would like to discuss this. But not
here. So I'll stop here. The above should only serve as example why I
think that what Dmitry did is the right direction, but not yet really
good. :-)
Oh, and thanks for the pointer to #959174 in the other mail. It hurts
to read the hostility in there. :-(
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <[email protected]>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Subject: Re: Bug#959920: systemctl,elogind: No more co-installable
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:05:44 +0100
Dmitry,
With the upload of systemctl/1.4.4181-1.1, this issue is no longer evident.
Are you happy for me to reassign #959920 to systemctl so it can be closed with
the appropriate fixed version?
Thanks
Mark
Acknowledgement sent
to Dmitry Smirnov <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Ecosystem Init Diversity Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 04 Sep 2020 03:36:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).