#1075757 elogind’s conflict with libelogind0 precludes upgrade

Package:
elogind
Source:
elogind
Description:
user, seat and session management daemon
Submitter:
Benjamin Cama
Date:
2024-07-04 20:51:05 UTC
Severity:
normal
#1075757#5
Date:
2024-07-04 11:57:00 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Maintainer,

I tried to upgrade to the latest 255 version of elogind, but I do not
understand the recent "Conflicts" addition with libelogind0: it renders
it uninstallable together with latest libelogind0, and thus ask me to
install libsystemd instead, which I do not want.

From what I understand, dependency to libelogind0 has been dropped
because it actually provides exactly the libsystemd ABI now, so elogind
now depends on just libsystemd. But the addition of the "Conflicts" with
libelogind0 makes its use as a libsystemd substitute impossible. What
gives?

Maybe I have gotten something wrong, please tell me if so. Attached is
my upgrade attempt (not a full/dist-upgrade) for just elogind *with*
libelogind0 to nail the problem down; this is the output of:

  apt-get install elogind libsystemd0+

This issue first appeared when installing/upgrading *any* package, where
apt wanted to install systemd on my system, because of some reverse
dependency I suppose.

Thanks for your support of this nice alternative software BTW.

Regards.
-- Benjamin

#1075757#10
Date:
2024-07-04 14:14:10 UTC
From:
To:
That is the correct solution. Recent versions use libsystemd0 compatible cgroups. You need to let libelogind0 be uninstalled.  See changelog and NEWS.

libelogind0 itself will probably disppear or become a transitional package.

(Sorry for the brevity -- we are away atm)

Mark

#1075757#15
Date:
2024-07-04 20:43:18 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Mark,

Le Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 03:14:10PM +0100, Mark Hindley a écrit :

Ho, OK then, but I could not read the NEWS until the package is getting
installed, so I did not get it. Installation went well this way.  But:

So is libelogind0 deprecated then? I could understand that this subset
of a library may be a bit too much work for the size reduction (I
witnessed 670kB vs. 930kB, no big deal) and no difference in dependency,
but I see nowhere that it is abandonned. Did I understand correctly? Or
is it only Debian that abandon it? May I suggest to put an explaination
somewhere on the reasons why?

No problem, thanks for the quick answer.

Regards.
-- Benjamin