[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#861641: marked as done (RC-ness of failures due to missing systemd)

Your message dated Tue, 02 May 2017 06:26:00 +0000
with message-id <f5d01795-31a0-2b2a-e9be-2046d1a269c7@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: RC-ness of failures due to missing systemd
has caused the Debian Bug report #861641,
regarding RC-ness of failures due to missing systemd
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
861641: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=861641
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
package: release.debian.org

I'd like to hear official position of the release team regarding the
bugs caused by lack of systemd, for example #856720. In the case above
the package was working fine in a system with systemd present because
/run/diaspora was correctly created by systemd. But it was not working
in systems without systemd like docker. Is systemd part of a standard
debian installation? If not what are the standard installation
environment we should support? Are we expected to support docker which
not have systemd?

Thanks
Praveen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Tue, 2 May 2017 11:30:29 +0530 Pirate Praveen <praveen@debian.org> wrote:
> package: release.debian.org
> 
> I'd like to hear official position of the release team regarding the
> bugs caused by lack of systemd, for example #856720. In the case above
> the package was working fine in a system with systemd present because
> /run/diaspora was correctly created by systemd. But it was not working
> in systems without systemd like docker. Is systemd part of a standard
> debian installation? If not what are the standard installation
> environment we should support? Are we expected to support docker which
> not have systemd?
> 
> Thanks
> Praveen
> 

Hi Praveen,

I have not read the full bug log of #856720 (TL;DR + ENOTIME), so I may
have made assumptions that are not fully applicable to this case.

  In general the situation you describe sounds indeed like an RC bug.

Rationale
=========

As systemd is not essential, its functionality must not be assumed in
any way.  In general packages must be installable and functional under
e.g. sysvinit, which is a supported alternative init system.
(Exceptions apply for init specific tooling, where it would not make
sense to support alternative init systems).  Related:
  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/02/msg00005.html
  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/08/msg00001.html

Indeed, most packages should also be installable and functional in a
chroot or a container.  Partly so the service can be used during a build
(e.g. using a postgres/mariadb for a test during a build[1]) and partly
so administrators can use it as a containment strategy (e.g. an
additional layer of defence).

Furthermore, /run is a tmpdir wiped at boot and the package must ensure
that any files in /run are created as they are needed (and per above,
you cannot assume systemd will do this for you).
  This is required by FHS 2.3's definition of /var/run (plus Debian
Policy requirement for FHS 2.3 + its remap of /var/run to /run).
  - NB: Simply creating the /run/<pkg> directory in postinst is *not*
    sufficient as the directory will be wiped during boot.


If you believe that the rationale does not apply to this situation,
please reopen the bug.

Thanks,
~Niels

[1] Admittedly, you should probably not use the "system-wide" service in
this case as it would have undesirable consequences for people building
on their host system.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: