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

Re: How to handle daemon-not-running bugs of debhelper compat level 11?



Am 30.04.19 um 17:26 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 29.04.19 um 21:53 schrieb Niels Thykier:

>> override_dh_installinit:
>> 	DH_COMPAT=12 dh_installinit ...
>>
>> override_dh_installsystemd:
>> 	DH_COMPAT=12 dh_installsystemd ...
>>
>> Note the exact runes needed depend on your existing compat level and
>> package; the above runes are geared towards compat 11 but are untested.
>>  For compat 10 and earlier you want a similar but slightly different
>> approach.
>>
>> I believe that is the (general) route/path of "least evil/problematic"
>> for buster (without having looked at the concrete packaging at all).
> 
> I picked a package from list.txt at random: uptimed
> I verified that a "apt install uptimed; apt remove uptimed; apt install
> uptimed" sequence results in a non-running uptimed.service.
> 
> I then followed the hints from Niels and tried the attached patch.
> It seems to fix the issue at hand.
> 
> 
> I'd be interested to know, how the release team would like to this issue
> handled.  While I did spot a few false positives when glancing over the
> list (e.g. packages which use --no-start, so are not affected), I would
> expect the majority of packages to be affected.
> 
> I can offer to do a MBF if the release team thinks this issue is
> important enough to be fixed for buster.

If the release teams thinks that this should be fixed for buster, I
wonder if we shouldn't consider a second approach: Updating debhelper to
use compat mode 12 behaviour for dh_installinit/dh_installsystemd if
compat mode is set to 11.
This would avoid a lot of churn. If we basically update all packages to
use compat mode 12 behaviour explicitly, we might just as well do that
change in a single package.

Regards,
Michael
-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: