Looking at sddm source, it appears the user session process is started by uid root, so the subsequent groups fiddling (getgroups) will merge root's groups with the user's and set that for the process. In short it seems to boil down to crappy design. You'd do well in opting for some other "display manager".

Ah, I messed up; meant that those lines would be in /etc/pam.d/sddm-greeter

As a suggestion, you might try editing /etc/pam.d/sddm to make the line

@include common-auth

be the two lines

@include common-auth
auth optional pam_group.so

I'm hoping that might make the login procedure via sddm more aligned with the procedure of tty login and in particular add a pam_group.so call that seems to be missing. Though it's kind of an untested wild guess so don't hold your breath.

Dynamic linking includes some version handling and it is common practice that after placing a lib in the lib collection(s), one runs ldconfig for reasons that are somewhat explained in

man ldconfig

ldconfig will then establish the "soname" link that the dynamic linker (ld.so) requires. There is also the documentation

man ld.so

that really represents 101 knowledge for us who want to understand.

Yeah, and others too. Your scale is not useful as it makes your language be an implied offense. Unless of course you want to show up as a rude prick.

Wasn't this thread started by yourself @Ron, as a question to the world about the motive behind a particular situation among the threads on this forum?

Therefore the thread ended up here, because I decided that that kind of discussion is more suited to this section.

Overall this, i.e. dev1galaxy.org, is a discussions forum of many section, and certain sections should be more focussed in their topics than others. It's not always easy to do that with the range of minds around here generating all sorts of posts to make threads floating in all sorts of directions. Yet I don't see any hands raised for taking on the moderator responsibility; just the odd whining by rando's.

@KindlyDoRight, after review and discussion we have decided that suspending is not warranted, and we welcome you back as forum member.

Onwards we want to remind you and everyone about the virtue of minimalism both in content and count of forum posts. We moderators prefer to avoid moderating against personal style but rather prefer that people self-adjust towards a coherent and pleasant discussions forum on Devuan related matters. And to be sure: AI generated posts are not acceptable.

@KindlyDoRight as noted by golinux, we think your postings are generated. Your account is currently suspended. Please email me to discuss.

"pain points" ?? "friction" ?? What are you talking about?

I think almost everyone agrees with you, but it looks like it has happened, so now we (you) need to go on from there ... to stay you need to find appropriate debian repository snapshots that include the needed package versions, and then add those to your sources.list. And you might then also want to have pinning set up to restrict those sources to the particular packages. Alternatively you just download the deb files...

E.g. https://snapshot.debian.org/archive/deb … u1_all.deb is one of them.

EDIT EDIT: I couldn't convince apt-get to use a sources.list line, so I have to stay with advicing you to download the deb file(s).

As you knw, chimaera is "end of life" and there are a couple of newer releases now in play: daedalus, excalibur. How about upgrading?

And, if that snapshot has those debs, it'd be easy for you to add that to your sources list. Would be a way to fix the situation for yourself; your personal merge. if you like.

Yes there is some inconsistency there which might be due to those particular package version are available neither in deb.debian.org nor in archive.debian.org. They apparently where available in deb.debian.org but then have got removed from there and, contrary to expectation, not been placed in archive.debian.org. (Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places ?)

It does look like Devuan's amprolla will need some logic to handle that. Perhaps you would want to assist with that... (how to merge debian packages that get dropped from deb.debian.org without turning up in archive.debian.org). Or you could perhaps get in touch with the debian developers on that issue. Afaict it would affect Debian 11 Bullseye in a similar way.