Bug#940034: libelogind0: replacing a core system library and conflicting against the default init considered harmful

Adam Borowski kilobyte at angband.pl
Fri Sep 20 09:04:57 BST 2019

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 09:06:57AM +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> When I looked I elogind a while back I was able to build a package without
> having a public libelogind0, I basically had that in my debian/rules file:
> # We only build the libelogind0 and libelogind-dev if we are building for
> # Devuan or its derivatives
> ifneq ($(shell dpkg-vendor --derives-from Devuan && yes), yes)
> export DH_OPTIONS=--no-package=libelogind0 --no-package=libelogind-dev
> endif

That was the case initially, yes.  It might be worth going back to.

> libelogind library is only needed for applications that want to interact
> with the daemon, in the ITP (#905388) bug I also noted that.
> If I'm not mistaken, libsystemd (and libelogind) are using D-Bus to
> communicate with the daemon part, was it checked that the API used is
> compatible? Is there documentation of the differences, if any?

The API and dbus protocol are compatible (or at least are supposed to be).
However, per the request of policykit's maintainer, libelogind was instead
made ABI-compatible with libsystemd, and was made to replace it.

> Bottom line, is libelogind even needed in the archive to achieve your goal
> of having an implementation of the login1 D-Bus API not requiring systemd as
> PID1?

This approach was used until February, and did work well.  I'm a mere
user/sponsor thus I don't fully understand the reasons for switching.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ A MAP07 (Dead Simple) raspberry tincture recipe: 0.5l 95% alcohol,
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ 1kg raspberries, 0.4kg sugar; put into a big jar for 1 month.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Filter out and throw away the fruits (can dump them into a cake,
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ etc), let the drink age at least 3-6 months.

More information about the Debian-init-diversity mailing list