Bug#796603: keyboard-configuration: Has init script in runlevel S but no matching service file
On 23 August 2015 at 09:56, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> fsateler@debian.org <fsateler@debian.org> (2015-08-22):
>> Package: keyboard-configuration
>> Severity: important
>> User: pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
>> Usertags: init-rcs-service
>
> (maintonly considered slightly annoying.)
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Your package keyboard-configuration has an initscript that is enabled
>> in runlevel S, but it does not provide a corresponding systemd
>> service unit.
>>
>> Systemd generates units for all sysv init scripts that do not have a
>> corresponding systemd unit. By default, it sets
>> DefaultDependencies=yes, which means they get ordered after early
>> boot has finished.
>>
>> The problem is that to preserve the runlevel S semantics, systemd in
>> debian is currently[1] ordering all S services Before=sysinit.target.
>> This target is particularly early in the boot sequence, which means
>> that it is most of the time too strict. In turn, this means it is
>> fairly easy to end up with dependency cycles. For an example, see bug
>> [763315]. Do note that the cycle still exists with sysvinit, it is
>> just that systemd complains more loudly.
>>
>> Please add a systemd unit for the given service with the appropriate
>> dependencies, which most of the time will be less strict than
>> Before=sysinit.target. In other cases, the script is simply not
>> applicable in systemd, in which case the package should ship a
>> symlink to /dev/null as /lib/systemd/system/<initscript>.service.
>>
>> We have prepared a transition wiki page[2] explaining the issue in
>> more detail, and outlining some general guidance. Please refer to it
>> as it will have useful information.
>>
>> If you have any other doubts, feel free to ask in
>> pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> (Talking more as d-i RM than possible comaintainer, which I'm not.)
>
> src:console-setup could probably do with more hands on it, especially
> given (very friendly) bug reports like #763695. If you guys had any time
> to spend on making sure boot time dependencies are correct, and possibly
> that boot time performances improve over time, that would be much
> appreciated.
Does console-setup actually need to be run before user services are
started? My guess is that it only needs to run before getty, but it
should not block other services that want to start.
If someone could answer that question it should be very simple to
provide a patch for this.
--
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler
Reply to: