Bug#941937: apt: Unexpected linkage dependency on libsystemd
(I guess the last email was the disagree email, and this one is the
positive one, idk, I just missed those two points)
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:15:07PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:34:47AM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:34:23AM +0300, Aleksey Tulinov wrote:
> Why even a warning? All the inhibit thing does is to prevent the admin from
> doing something stupid (rebooting during an upgrade), and even that has
> non-fatal results. Debian had no inhibit at all for decades and the sky
> wasn't falling -- so it's a purely facultative option. If the system has
> been booted using systemd and systemd is in an usable state (no changing
> archs, etc) then inhibit will work -- otherwise, that particular handhold
> won't be there.
I agree.
The thing is, we silently ignore failures to inhibit. This means it works
fine on non-systemd systems - as it always did. Adding a warning on systems
where it should work (stat(/run/systemd/system) == 0) would make it easy
to discover regressions, but it's ultimately not super useful, as people
won't read it anyway, especially if it's a background process doing this.
>
> > This is a best effort thing, there's nothing sensible we can do if it
> > fails, except for logging a warning, and that does not help a lot. We
> > don't want to issue an error obviously because you still want to be able
> > to upgrade the system if your dbus is down or stuff.
>
> Just silently ignore a failure to inhibit.
That's what we do right now.
--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
Reply to: