Hallo Michael, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> (2022-01-18): > What follows is an annotated list of changes. A full debdiff is also > attached for your convenience. > > As usual, I CCed debian-boot i.e. kibi for his ack regarding d-i. Thanks as usual! > * udevadm-trigger: do not return immediately on EACCES. > Fixes a regression when using systemd-networkd in an unprivileged LXD > container. (Closes: #997006) > > https://salsa.debian.org/biebl/systemd/-/commit/6c4f3c69d753edc8ca963c9f6f86f76bd30275c6 > > Straightforward cherry-pick from upstream. Confirmed by the bug submitter > that it fixes the issue in #997006 > > Touches udev code but I don't expect any effect on d-i. I don't think we do too many unprivileged things in d-i, yeah… FWIW, a quick grep in our packages suggests we have mainly this user: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer-utils/-/blob/master/update-dev which happily starts with set +e… > * Demote systemd-timesyncd from Depends to Recommends. > This avoids a dependency cycle between systemd and systemd-timesyncd and > thus makes dist upgrades more predictable and robust. > It also allows minimal, systemd based containers where no NTP client is > strictly necessary. > To ensure that systemd-timesyncd is installed in a default installation > created by d-i, bump its priority to standard. > (Closes: #986651, #993947) > > This one is probably the trickiest (and possibly also the simplest) > change. It simply breaks a dependency loop between systemd and > systemd-timesyncd resulting in a more predictable upgrade sequence > which in turn ensures that modifications of systemd-timesyncd's > conffiles are preserved on upgrades. > > As systemd is installed during the initial bootstrap phase, where > Recommends are not considered, we would end up with no > systemd-timesycnd being installed on fresh installations. > To avoid that, we'd like to bump the priority of systemd-timesyncd to > standard in stable (so it is installed via the standard task). Just as a data point: I suppose it was a good idea for us (maintainers of the Raspberry Pi images) to start pulling systemd-timesyncd for all suites then… https://salsa.debian.org/raspi-team/image-specs/-/commit/96ac1dcec76e9af65150c4c2c2e5c88a3191504b While your proposed approach should be sufficient for a lot of use cases, people building their own images might get a different set of packages before/after the point release (depending on the tool they use). I'd probably have looped in the cloud team for such a change, but ISTR having read recently they install chrony anyway. I have no strong opinions either way (the fix is trivial, but the change could be seen as surprising), that seems tricky to me too. Anyway, no objections for d-i at first glance. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature