Re: systemd-fsck?
On Sat, 10 May 2014 15:38:24 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
wrote:
>I consider it of the highest importance that the transition to systemd not
>break running systems.
+1
>Some of the regressions introduced are going to turn out to be bugs in
>systemd. Some of them are going to turn out to be latent bugs in other
>packages that are exposed by the transition to systemd. The important thing
>here is that Debian developers (and bug reporters) work constructively
>*with* the systemd maintainers to properly isolate the cause of the bugs,
This works the other way around. Package maintainers (and this
explicitly includes the maintainers of big, important packages like
systemd has just become by KDE depending on it) _need_ to work with
the bug reporters without saying (explicitly or implicitly) "go away,
stupid minion, don't bother us with your problem".
It was pretty clear that introducing systemd to Debian as "needed on
every system running a reasonably current Desktop Environment" is
going to cause friction. If the systemd maintainers are not willing to
even assist in easing this friction even if they're not the fault of a
friction in their opinion, they should not have taken that endeavour
in the first place.
>> The plain fact:
>
>> Using systemd breaks something that worked for probably a decade or longer
>> before however long that su is in that init script. So on what account do
>> you call calling "su" in an init script a bug? It may not be the most
>> elegant solution to do things, granted, but a bug? Come on. Calling it a
>> bug just cause systemd / policykit treat calling su in an initscript as
>> they do is quite arrogant in my eyes.
>
>As the maintainer of the pam package in Debian, I assure you: this is a bug
>in dirmngr. System services should not (must not) call interfaces that
>launch pam sessions as part of their init scripts. su is one of those
>interfaces.
Is this documented anywhere, or is this only clear with detailed PAM
knowledge, which I have tried to build numerous times in the last ten
years and was never able due to (in my opinion) inadequate
documentation on the beginner level.
This is, btw, the same problem I have with dbus, *kit and numerous
other freedesktop-related software: There are truckloads of
documentation available, all written by people with intimate knowledge
of the software, lacking the two all-important first paragraphs like
"foo is a package doing baz, bar and bam, and to do so, it interacts
with DrizzleKit, BoggleBus and Fumble with the responsibility of
assisting with bar taken by BoggleBus". It's just missing the
description of the "big picture". I used to be able to help myself
getting this picture by dumping -x in shell scripts and running them,
but that possibility is taken away in more and more places.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Reply to: