elogind plan

Mark Hindley mark at hindley.org.uk
Mon Dec 3 09:11:30 GMT 2018

On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 11:42:26PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> So... what's the plan with elogind?
> We need some sort of transition, _plus_ testing.  And Buster's freeze is
> afoot.

Yes, absolutely!

I prepared a package of upstream 239.2 last week which I posted to the list and
Ian is reviewing. Upstream 239.3 is imminent.

> There's of course that policykit-1 issue; do we have a plan?

We need the package of 239.2-1+debian1 uploaded before we can ask the
policykit-1 devs to include libelogind in their builds

> Besides that, with libpam-elogind-compat installed xfce works for me, and
> since today so does mate.

Good news.
> But, that compat package is not going to hit buster (nor even sid), so we'd
> need to fix dependencies.  I think smcv's suggestion from January would work
> -- we can replace depends on "libpam-systemd" with "default-logind | logind",
> with elogind declaring Provides: logind (and on some derivatives, also
> default-logind).  That would handle packages needing this part of the
> functionality.  Does this sound ok to you?  If so, please say so -- I still
> have a set of patches implementing this, thus filing bugs would be far less
> work for me.  And if you have a different but similar solution, it's likely a
> sed job on the patches would be enough.

I don't see any problems with that approach, but we will need to get the virtual
package names formally agreed.

> There's also the matter of upgrades: there's a need to be able to switch
> from systemd to sysvinit+elogind, which you can't currently do (systemd's
> prerm refuses to remove while it's pid 1).

The impression I had received was that it might be difficult to persuade
systemd's maintainers to remove that restriction. Do you know if anyone has
actually tried asking them?


More information about the Debian-init-diversity mailing list