Arguments for reopening #935304

[Mark Hindley]

Colleagues,

Bug #935304 asking for libpam-systemd to relax its dependency on systemd-sysv
was closed today as wontfix. A fix for this is required to make it possible to
change from systemd to another init system smoothly without removing the Display
Manager and many desktop components.

I want to rehearse arguments for reopening and would welcome comments and
criticism.

Debian Policy 9.11 states that

 'Packages may integrate with these replacement init systems by providing
 implementation-specific configuration information about how and when to start a
 service or in what order to run certain tasks at boot time. However, any
 package integrating with other init systems must also be backwards-compatible
 with sysvinit by providing a SysV-style init script with the same name as and
 equivalent functionality to any init-specific job, as this is the only start-up
 configuration method guaranteed to be supported by all init implementations.'

One possible argument is that by depending directly on systemd-sysv,
libpam-systemd is providing a direct systemd integration without a initscript.

It might also be possible to argue (silly though this sounds,  I know) that
systemd ought to provide an initscript.

I look forward to any comments or other suggestions as to how to argue this.

Thanks

Mark