Re: Bug#800014: multipath-udeb: not installable: depends on libsystemd0
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:42PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 18:53 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > [ Adding debian-boot@lists.debian.org back. ]
> >
>
> Sorry about that.
>
>
> > > This was intentionally done because upstream added systemd
> > > dependency
> > > some time ago. For Jessie, I had disabled systemd support, but now,
> > > it
> > > makes sense to have it, and align with upstream and other
> > > distributions.
For the sake of derivatives without systemd, you might see if it's
practical to leave the systemd dependency optional.
-- hendrik
> > >
> > > So, I think the real question is about why libsystemd0 does not
> > > have a
> > > udeb ?
> > >
> > > systemd maintainers should provide that input.
> >
> > Some input from someone who doesn't know a thing about systemd or
> > multipath: libmultipath.so.0 has a NEEDED entry on libsystemd.so.0,
> > which seems to only define symbols named sd_* (which seems fair). The
> > only use I see in libmultipath.so.0 is sd_listen_fds.
> >
> > Its manpage says:
> >
> > sd_listen_fds() shall be called by a daemon to check for file
> > descriptors passed by the init system as part of the socket
> > -based
> > activation logic.
> >
> > There's no systemd in d-i, so there's no socket-based activation
> > logic,
> > and you can't rely on that in your multipath udeb.
>
>
> Hmmm... I'll look into it later. But when you say "No systemd in d-i",
> does it mean that is how it is going to remain ?
>
> --
> Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs
> Debian - The Universal Operating System
Reply to: