On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 18:49, Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026-07-16 07:40, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > It is clearly not mandatory functionality, as the package works just > > fine without it, minus some optional features that are seldomly > > needed. > > If 'who' always fails, is coreutils working "just fine"?
In many setups, yes > I used "who" > before reading your email this morning (to look into a problem involving > authentication and backups), and if 'who' had failed due to a missing > library I would not have said coreutils is working "just fine". User systems are not one of such setups, so that will never happen. > That being said, to cater to a user population that thinks coreutils > works "just fine" even if 'who' always fails, how about if we instead > look into another idea that I think was briefly mentioned earlier: > namely, packagers run a shell command "optional-libsystemd who pinky > users", where optional-libsystemd is something like the attached script. No. We are not going to add random per-package scripts and hacks. There are in the order of ~60000 (sixty thousands) packages in Debian, how on earth can something like that possibly scale? Each and every one with some custom random shitty script somewhere that one just has to know it exists, and where to run it and where... Sorry, but this is just nonsense. After umpteen emails, you still have failed to raise a single issue with the actual patch, given once again dlopen _is already used_ in coreutils. Is there any actual issue with it? If so, why isn't the same issue already affecting openssl? I don't see any "optional-openssl" script for it
