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

Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 03:25:36PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Dear all,
> A few days ago, after a routine upgrade from testing, the power button on
> my laptop ceased functioning.  I was busy at the time, so I lived with
> having to remember to type "sudo shutdown -h now" for a few days; yesterday,
> I finally took the time to debug the issue.
> I started with "strace -p $(pidof acpid)$", and it took me almost an hour
> to work it out.  It turns out that apt had helpfully installed systemd, so
> the powerbtn-acpi-support.sh script was detecting a running systemd-logind,
> and (reasonably enough) going on strike.

That sounds like a bug to me. Either in systemd-logind (if that was
supposed to have handled the power button event instead) or in acpid for
not telling systemd-logind about the event.

Hmm. I presume the intention is that logged in users are notified of the
impending shut down. Simply refusing to honour the power button because
of the presence of a process sounds like a nightmare to me.

> I was a little bit annoyed at that, so I filed bug 753357, which was
> immediately closed by Michael Biebl with the following advice:
>   > install systemd-shim

For the record, and despite its name, systemd-shim is not systemd. If
you read the description of the package, it becomes clearer:

  This package emulates the systemd function that are required to run
  the systemd helpers without using the init service

In other words, systemd-shim is a shim (a thin interfacing layer). You
place it between programs that expect to be able to use systemd and
another init system (sysv usually).

Consider it the reverse of systemd-sysv.

> I reopened the bug and explained that I have no desire to run systemd,
> that the actual bug is about silently breaking my power button during
> a routine upgrade, and that perhaps, just perhaps, the systemd maintainers
> could be so kind as to avoid such issues in the future by adding suitable
> "conflicts" to the systemd package.  The bug was immediately closed again:
>   > Certainly not.
> So I'm turning to this list for help:
>   1. Could some competent person tell me the right way to tell apt that it
>      should fail an upgrade rather than installing systemd?  I guess
>      I could make a dummy package that conflicts with systemd, but I'm
>      sure there's a better way.
>   2. Could some kind soul explain to the systemd maintainers that gentle
>      persuasion, while not always the most efficient way to take over the
>      world, is more in line with point 4 of the Debian Social Contract
>      than alternative approaches such as bullying?
> Thanks a lot,
> -- Juliusz
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 87y4wdyzvz.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 87y4wdyzvz.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: