On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu 07 Aug 2014 at 16:53:10 +0300, David Baron wrote: > >> On Thursday 07 August 2014 14:21:45 Brian wrote: >> > >> > This is part of the transition to systemd plan. >> > >> > https://lists.debian.org/87mwc9gfsw....@xoog.err.no >> > >> > Also, for those who care, libpam-systemd's Depends: line now has >> > >> > systemd-sysv | systemd-shim >> >> Should the dsf-53.3 versions be installed or does it matter? >> systemd-shim is NOT installed (had installed on previous 32 bit system as I >> said). Or are these obsolete, being handled by systemd-sysv so can/should be >> removed or does it matter? > > The transition hasn't been completed yet, I'd install and hold off any > tidying until it has been and you remain a happy camper. The neat > fallback SysV init binary feature of sysvinit might be something you > want to keep. > >> Wish there were not so many bugs around systemd. No objection to it as long >> as >> it works. > > The number of bugs on > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=systemd;dist=unstable > > doesn't seen that high for a package of its importance and visibility. > Most reports have had a response. Some reports are not bugs. > > If you value a low blood pressure don't look at the bug page for apt. :)
This is precisely why systemd should have been brought up to speed in a separate, parallel, volunteer-only distro. (If you don't understand what I mean by a separate, parallel, volunteer-only distribution, think of kfreebsd, but a little closer to home.) I'd still say there's time for debian to go for a course correction, but everyone seems to be determined to ignore the obvious. -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caar43im+qzfhwzzvou3jggsmb99yyktggw-ma66-0z6quwu...@mail.gmail.com
