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
