| 1 |
> On 7 Sep 2022, at 17:29, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 11:56 AM Marek Szuba <marecki@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Dear everyone, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I wonder if we should create a virtual package to allow our users - or |
| 8 |
>> at least those who run systemd anyway - to choose between sys-apps/dbus |
| 9 |
>> and sys-apps/dbus-broken as D-Bus implementation for their systems. The |
| 10 |
>> usual "Gentoo is about choice" thing aside, there is now at least one, |
| 11 |
>> security-related, problem with the former which can be worked around by |
| 12 |
>> switching to the latter: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/22737 |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> WDYT? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> A virtual seems a bit pointless for the following reasons: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> 1. dbus and dbus-broker can be (and usually are) installed simultaneously. |
| 19 |
> 2. dbus-broker[launcher] utilizes config files installed by dbus, and |
| 20 |
> actually RDEPENDs on sys-apps/dbus for that reason. |
| 21 |
> 3. Many client applications depend on sys-apps/dbus for libdbus. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
A virtual _might_ have value to add to @system for desktop profiles, |
| 24 |
but I'm not sure. The other criticisms remain, of course. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> If you can think of some way to encourage users to install/enable |
| 28 |
> dbus-broker, that seems like a good idea to me. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Documentation on the wiki (either on the dbus page, or a new dbus-broker) |
| 32 |
explaining how to migrate & its advantages would be most welcome. |
Archives