Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Hi, On Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2014, Michael Biebl wrote: Agreed, we should do the switch sooner rather then later. Let me follow up on the actual switch in a separate thread. this has not happened yet, shall I file bugs against the general pseudo package so we have some means to track this? We discussed that in #debian-systemd and we think we have found a pretty neat solution which should handle both the fresh installation and upgrade case. We also think that we are ready to do the switch asap for the reasons you have given. I'm curious to hear your plans! cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Joerg Jaspert dijo [Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:36:08PM +0200]: And should we open the archive for a series of i hate $tool, i never want it packages, where do we stop? In theory we could end up with a load of them. Joerg, please be reasonable. I entirely am, and thats why such a hate package won't bypass me, unless there is one of a CTTE decision, a GR forcing me, or the ftp team overruling me. (...) I wan't people to have the best system possible. Debian, via its CTTE way[1], has settled on going the way to systemd. Thanks, Joerg. I trust you and the rest of the ftp-masters to uphold sane decisions. You have my full support as just-one-more-DD. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 2014-07-03, Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote: On 13626 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote: Joerg, please be reasonable. I entirely am, and thats why such a hate package won't bypass me, unless there is one of a CTTE decision, a GR forcing me, or the ftp team overruling me. Thanks. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lp5k44$4o5$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Quoting Charles Plessy (2014-07-03 03:14:21) may I suggest the Blends framework to those who want metapackages that influence what is installed by default on their system ? Currently, one of the main limits of the Blends framework is that it works mostly by installing metapackages after a default installation. But I would love to see an optional Blends menu in Debian Installer, maybe coupled with possibilities to preseed alternative defaults. Such a development would open the way to consistent systemd-less Debian systems for those who like it, and the benefit for Debian as a whole would be a more powerful Blends framework. Doesn't it look like a nice ending to the story ? How would the use of blends change the fact that pinning is still needed to ensure keeping certain packages off? Yes, it would be lovely to have meta-packages from blends integrated into the tasks selection of debian-installer (both those generated with the blends-dev framework and those developed in other ways) - I welcome anyone to collaborate with the install team to make that happen - but such meta-packages are also not essential or required. Please read Mattias' explanation which you directly replied to. Debian-installer, when presented with conflicting package selections, will simply let APT resolve a best solution - which when involving systemd will likely cause that package to win due to its widespread reverse dependencies. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Le jeudi 03 juillet 2014 à 07:36 +0900, Norbert Preining a écrit : You will never get xfce via an indirect 4-step dependency chain, but systemd comes in due to being the first alternative with lots of packages. Just like ConsoleKit used to. For the *exact* same reasons. Yet I didn’t see any proposal for a consolekit-must-die package. -- .''`.Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404402025.14436.664.camel@dsp0698014
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Yet I didn't see any proposal for a consolekit-must-die package= Must be because most people did not even get consolekit installed. Or because it was not that intrusive? (People in the know avoided *kit for a long time already anyway.) bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lp400h$348$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
This thread seems to be discussing the wrong problems[1]. We currently have the problem that systemd is still not installed by default by debootstrap, despite the tech ctte decision being made months ago. It's not clear what the right solution to that is; should debootstrap special-case systemd on linux arches, or should systemd's priority be different on linux arches? (And can that even be done.) We also currently have the problem that there's no upgrade procedure that causes systemd to be installed by default. This is being handled peicemeil by eg desktop dependencies, but not in general. If these two problems were sorted out, there would be no reason for anything much in the archive to depend on systemd, because it would be guaranteed to be present on the systems it's supposed to be present on. And so those who don't want it would not need to worry about a stealth installation of systemd. I belive these two problems are also requirements to be fixed by the next release. And putting them off until the last minute is going to lose out on a lot of integration time. So all the energy in this thread seems it could be more productively applied. -- see shy jo [1] With the exception of the subthread about pre-reboot issues after systemd is installed for the first time. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 13626 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote: On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Joerg Jaspert wrote: And should we open the archive for a series of i hate $tool, i never want it packages, where do we stop? In theory we could end up with a load of them. Joerg, please be reasonable. I entirely am, and thats why such a hate package won't bypass me, unless there is one of a CTTE decision, a GR forcing me, or the ftp team overruling me. Why do you state such things despite the fact that you are well aware that systemd is different from all the others? The only explanation is that you don't want people to keep systemd out. I wan't people to have the best system possible. Debian, via its CTTE way[1], has settled on going the way to systemd. It is entirely insane to add anti-systemd packages to the archive, especially as simple pinning from a local admin has way better effects, should they want to keep it out. Should people want to keep it out of their system they are free to do so, but any kind of no-* package is an abuse of the archive. -- bye, Joerg God can’t be everywhere, right? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87ionerxhj@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 03.07.2014 18:45, schrieb Joey Hess: This thread seems to be discussing the wrong problems[1]. We currently have the problem that systemd is still not installed by default by debootstrap, despite the tech ctte decision being made months ago. It's not clear what the right solution to that is; should debootstrap special-case systemd on linux arches, or should systemd's priority be different on linux arches? (And can that even be done.) We also currently have the problem that there's no upgrade procedure that causes systemd to be installed by default. This is being handled peicemeil by eg desktop dependencies, but not in general. If these two problems were sorted out, there would be no reason for anything much in the archive to depend on systemd, because it would be guaranteed to be present on the systems it's supposed to be present on. And so those who don't want it would not need to worry about a stealth installation of systemd. I belive these two problems are also requirements to be fixed by the next release. And putting them off until the last minute is going to lose out on a lot of integration time. So all the energy in this thread seems it could be more productively applied. Agreed, we should do the switch sooner rather then later. Let me follow up on the actual switch in a separate thread. We discussed that in #debian-systemd and we think we have found a pretty neat solution which should handle both the fresh installation and upgrade case. We also think that we are ready to do the switch asap for the reasons you have given. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Ma, 01 iul 14, 15:57:41, Neil Williams wrote: On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 18:26:53 +0400 vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote: I think you can just put Package: systemd Pin: origin Pin-Priority: -1 If what you actually intend is to retain sysvinit-core, it would need to be systemd-sysv Most probably not, because systemd-sysv Depends: systemd. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 07/02/2014 03:52 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: Juliusz, can you please paste your apt logs showing what pulled systemd in on the system? Sent by private mail. If anyone else wants a copy, please drop me a note. -- Juliusz Please send it publicly in the Debian bug tracker. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b3b4b7.8040...@debian.org
Re: systemd-shim [Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?]
❦ 1 juillet 2014 21:17 +0200, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org : As of this writing 204, is already over 1 year old and will be grossly outdated once jessie releases. It also misses a lot of important functionality. That missing functionality is holding back other maintainers, like the GNOME maintainers which need a newer logind for 3.12 or the AppArmor folks, which want the AppArmorProfile support in v210. I do not think it's reasonable to hold back any updates of systemd in the hope that an updated systemd-shim eventually appears. OpenBSD will produce shim for some systemd functionalities, including logind, hostnamed, localed and timedated through GSoC (with Ian Kremlin as student). https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/details/google/gsoc2014/kremlin/5639274879778816 The current work can be found here: https://uglyman.kremlin.cc/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=systemd-utl.git From what I read on the OpenBSD mailing list, it is expected hostnamed, localed and timedated interfaces to be completed by the end of the GSoC. Some additional work may be needed for a complete logind replacement. Maybe it would be a good idea to support this effort but I don't know how this could be done without interfering with Ian's GSoC. -- Use recursive procedures for recursively-defined data structures. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan Plauger) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 07/02/2014 12:09 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote: I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent. I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd. I don't agree. Many people in this list voiced concerns about systemd, and don't want it installed on their systems. IMO, enough so that it'd be worth a quick warning. Please don't take the average grand-mother who just had her first computer 3 days ago as an excuse to say newbies don't need to know. This does *not* work, and we don't do Debian only for those. There's also experts that are running Debian, and it'd be nice to tell them. *I* for example, would be happy to be warned about such a change, and wouldn't consider it a waste of time. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b3b69e.5080...@debian.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014, at 09:37, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 07/02/2014 12:09 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote: I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent. I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd. I don't agree. Many people in this list voiced concerns about systemd, and don't want it installed on their systems. Not many - just few and repetetively :(. There are also many people who either don't care or just agree. You don't expect to have the '+1' war to happen here, right? IMO, enough so that it'd be worth a quick warning. Yes, we have a release notes for that. I guess you would be welcome to help draft a text that needs to be put there instead of flaming here. Please don't take the average grand-mother who just had her first computer 3 days ago as an excuse to say newbies don't need to know. This does *not* work, and we don't do Debian only for those. There's also experts that are running Debian, and it'd be nice to tell them. *I* for example, would be happy to be warned about such a change, and wouldn't consider it a waste of time. Yes, we have a release notes for that. Thomas, just stop with this FUD. Your constant flaming is not helping neither you, your cause nor Debian, and it's becoming tiresome. You will not achieve anything more than a place in personal blacklists, and that would be a shame, because your non-systemd contributions are valuable. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404288449.15504.136854561.35cb4...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:13:31 +0100 Wookey woo...@wookware.org wrote: You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything systemdish. Please rename the systemd-must-die package to something neutral. Thank you. OK. I did rename the source package, but I liked the binary and thought anyone else who actually wanted this would enjoy it too, so it seemed appropriate despite not being entirely 'PC'. I think some people are failing to see the humour in this name (and Dawkins knows we could use some humour round this subject), but I guess if it's not going to be allowed then it's not going to be allowed. I'm sure you have heard about the amount of headache one joke of Douglas Crockford with its JSLint license provoked [1]. Humour is a wonderful thing (and while not being a systemd hater myself, I did appreciate the pick of the original package's name) but it has its limits of applicability. The official Debian software archive sets such limits--as simple as that. 1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#JSON -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140702135608.11f0a8aa94f2c2db031ac...@domain007.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Juliusz, can you please paste your apt logs Sent by private mail. Please send it publicly in the Debian bug tracker. Sorry, Thomas, but I'm not quite sure what are the privacy implications of making public the set of packages running on my system. (Probably none, but I'd rather not find out I'm wrong.) -- Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87iongvw5f.wl%...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
At Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:13:31 +0100, Wookey wrote: +++ Lars Wirzenius [2014-07-01 18:34 +0100]: On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Wookey wrote: You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything systemdish. Wookey, Please rename the systemd-must-die package to something neutral. Thank you. OK. I did rename the source package, but I liked the binary and thought anyone else who actually wanted this would enjoy it too, so it seemed appropriate despite not being entirely 'PC'. I think some people are failing to see the humour in this name (and Dawkins knows we could use some humour round this subject), but I guess if it's not going to be allowed then it's not going to be allowed. Yes, I also completely fail to see the humour, especially in the light of other remarks made on this list by the author of the systemd-must-die package[0]. I just can't stop making the connection between the statement that systemd *must* die and that suggestion... [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/05/msg00585.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871tu455ze.wl%jer...@dekkers.ch
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Wed Jul 2 2014 07:26:52 PM HKT, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote: Please send it publicly in the Debian bug tracker. Sorry, Thomas, but I'm not quite sure what are the privacy implications of making public the set of packages running on my system. (Probably none, but I'd rather not find out I'm wrong.) just carefully cut the relevant parts... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404303683.1781.3.camel@Nokia-N900-42-11
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Wookey wrote: I think some people are failing to see the humour in this name (and Dawkins knows we could use some humour round this subject), but I guess if it's not going to be allowed then it's not going to be allowed. Yes, I also completely fail to see the humour, especially in the light of other remarks made on this list by the author of the systemd-must-die package[0]. I just can't stop making the connection Yes, Debian definitely needs more people who understand the humour. Again, that message was written with Usenet context in mind; the *-must-die names for various packages were made with the idea of not permitting them near systems administrated by me in mind and to coin a unique namespace. But then, I did not upload them, and I do not oppose a name change. Also, add the Important: yes header (and, obviously, remove the Origin/Bugs headers that I put there for all packages in my own repositories) to make apt DTRT. (Also, Section metapackages is probably correct.) prevent-systemd-{completely,installed,running} is a naming scheme people would not disagree with, I hope? (Wookey knows the cut between these three.) As for the Multi-Arch header⦠if uploading a package targetting sid, just do it the sid way. The packages in my archive are usually way more portable than that. As for dh5: there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG AT ALL with that. Using dh or *shudder* cdbs introduces too many automatisms. (That being said, dh for such a metapackage would be fine, but the systemd-must-die binary package is built from a larger source package in my repo, which does more than just that and will maybe even grow more.) bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lp120i$8ea$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 02/07/14 15:38, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Wookey wrote: I think some people are failing to see the humour in this name (and Dawkins knows we could use some humour round this subject), but I guess if it's not going to be allowed then it's not going to be allowed. Yes, I also completely fail to see the humour, especially in the light of other remarks made on this list by the author of the systemd-must-die package[0]. I just can't stop making the connection Yes, Debian definitely needs more people who understand the humour. Again, that message was written with Usenet context in mind; the *-must-die names for various packages were made with the idea of not permitting them near systems administrated by me in mind and to coin a unique namespace. But then, I did not upload them, and I do not oppose a name change. Also, add the Important: yes header (and, obviously, remove the Origin/Bugs headers that I put there for all packages in my own repositories) to make apt DTRT. (Also, Section metapackages is probably correct.) prevent-systemd-{completely,installed,running} is a naming scheme people would not disagree with, I hope? (Wookey knows the cut between these three.) You have not yet explained why apt pinning is not enough. And if for some reason it's not enough, then that's what you need to fix. Surely we don't want 5 foo-must-die packages. Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b41d39.6060...@debian.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 16:54 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 02/07/14 15:38, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Wookey wrote: But then, I did not upload them, and I do not oppose a name change. Also, add the Important: yes header (and, obviously, remove the Origin/Bugs headers that I put there for all packages in my own repositories) to make apt DTRT. (Also, Section metapackages is probably correct.) prevent-systemd-{completely,installed,running} is a naming scheme people would not disagree with, I hope? (Wookey knows the cut between these three.) You have not yet explained why apt pinning is not enough. And if for some reason it's not enough, then that's what you need to fix. Surely we don't want 5 foo-must-die packages. Independent of Thorstens answer I (and many with me) find it very convenient to have these packages. And, there won't be 50 000 foo-must-die packages. There is no such controversy with other packages, the ones I can think of might be prevent-gnome, prevent-network-manager, prevent-pulseaudio, and perhaps a few more, not 50 000! And this one is very important: systemd is default, not optional. Please upload these packages, and please ftp-team allow the uploads (when the name issue is settled). Cc-ing the bug related to the stealth issue. Can somebody, being DM/DD to be allowed to do that, bring this issue this to the CTTE if needed? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404326370.23364.34.camel@PackardBell-PC
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 20:39 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 16:54 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: And this one is very important: systemd is default, not optional. ^^mandatory -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404326745.23364.36.camel@PackardBell-PC
Re: Bug#747535: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 20:39 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: these packages. And, there won't be 50 000 foo-must-die packages. Packages are there to install software, not to prevent sucht installation. This is a perversion of any package management system. What you want can be done via apt_preferences. Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 02/07/14 20:39, Svante Signell wrote: Independent of Thorstens answer I (and many with me) find it very convenient to have these packages. And, there won't be 50 000 foo-must-die packages. There is no such controversy with other packages, the ones I can think of might be prevent-gnome, prevent-network-manager, prevent-pulseaudio, and perhaps a few more, not 50 000! And this one is very important: systemd is default, not optional. Please upload these packages, and please ftp-team allow the uploads (when the name issue is settled). I don't want KDE on my system. I don't install kde-must-die, I just look at apt when I upgrade my system or install new packages. I don't want XFCE on my system. I don't install xfce-must-die, I just look at apt when I upgrade my system or install new packages. I don't want many things on my system. I don't have lots of foo-must-die packages installed. Instead, I just look at apt's output before confirming. If looking at apt is too much work for you, then pin the appropriate packages. We don't need any must-die packages in the archive, thanks. [ Dropping the Cc on #747535 as that seems completely irrelevant. ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b45cd1.6090...@debian.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 13624 March 1977, Svante Signell wrote: Please rename the systemd-must-die package to something neutral. Thank you. A package with this name wont ever appear in the archive, and I just rejected it. What about systemd-nogo or nogo-systemd, alternately just no-systemd? *I* fail to see the good that such a package will bring the archive and Debian. Not just for systemd but in general. It makes so much NOT sense to install a package to not install packages from the same archive. And IMO this is what a local admin should do with equivs, should they decide they don't want a certain set of packages to come in at whatever point later. And should we open the archive for a series of i hate $tool, i never want it packages, where do we stop? In theory we could end up with a load of them. no-gnome, no-kde, no-pulseaudio, no-whateverthehellsomeonedislikesnow We currently have some 25k binaries on amd64, plus 20k arch all. We should autogenerate a no-$whatever for all of em, i bet you find someone against any one of them. Maybe except for libs. -- bye, Joerg [http://www.youam.net/stuff/info...-hosting.de/server-info.php] [...] und der Arbeitsspeicher recht schnell und hoch ist. (Wie hoch? 2cm, 4cm? Am besten an die Decke nageln, was? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oax7sb3e@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: I don't want XFCE on my system. I don't install xfce-must-die, I just look at apt when I upgrade my system or install new packages. You will never get xfce via an indirect 4-step dependency chain, but systemd comes in due to being the first alternative with lots of packages. Look at the dependency tree and then you will understand why a systemd-must-die (or whatever the name is) package makes sense, but a xfce-must-die not. Not sooo hard to understand. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140702223654.gk19...@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Joerg Jaspert wrote: And should we open the archive for a series of i hate $tool, i never want it packages, where do we stop? In theory we could end up with a load of them. Joertg, please be reasonable. You know exactely why there is a difference between a conflict-package against systemd that comes in as indirect reference via hundreds of channels, while all the other stuff will hardly pulled in unless you install a package of that suite on purpose. You are comparing apples with watermelons, or better, apples with trees. Why do you state such things despite the fact that you are well aware that systemd is different from all the others? The only explanation is that you don't want people to keep systemd out. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140702224050.gl19...@auth.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
2014-07-03 0:40 GMT+02:00 Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at: On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Joerg Jaspert wrote: And should we open the archive for a series of i hate $tool, i never want it packages, where do we stop? In theory we could end up with a load of them. Joertg, please be reasonable. You know exactely why there is a difference between a conflict-package against systemd that comes in as indirect reference via hundreds of channels, while all the other stuff will hardly pulled in unless you install a package of that suite on purpose. You are comparing apples with watermelons, or better, apples with trees. Why do you state such things despite the fact that you are well aware that systemd is different from all the others? The only explanation is that you don't want people to keep systemd out. Just because the package's purpose in itself is - sorry - idiotic it shouldn't make it's way into the archive. We are building a consistent operating system here, with packages which add components to the OS. Some package preventing stuff to be added does not make sense from this point of view. But furthermore, the package does not fulfill the purpose it is designed for: It will *not* prevent the installation of systemd components, since nothing depends on it, in order to satisfy the dependency chain, Apt will simply remove the package. This can be circumvented by making the -must-die package essential or required, but that will never happen for obvious reasons. So you would have to pin that package in order for it to be useful. But this means that the package is not useful out-of-the box (what we expect from every Debian package), also you can pin the systemd-sysv package directly to prevent the init-system from becoming default. So adding the package to Debian is completely pointless. Having it in a private repo, however, is of course up to anyone who would like to use it. But for the reasons stated above, and of course for the must-die attitude, which, although maybe meant funny, does not come across as joke for all people, such a package could never be added to the Debian repositories. Please, just pin systemd-sysv and be done with it. And if you really want to help with making a systemd-init-free Debian, you should invest work in systemd-shim to make it use cgmanager. That is an open task where the systemd-shim authors could likely need help, and which would immediately help your case. Cheers, Matthias -- Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKNHny_70HCi+n=kl0ox2mkwhqkc4pqhzpt-1kq-cok29qj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Hello everybody, may I suggest the Blends framework to those who want metapackages that influence what is installed by default on their system ? Currently, one of the main limits of the Blends framework is that it works mostly by installing metapackages after a default installation. But I would love to see an optional Blends menu in Debian Installer, maybe coupled with possibilities to preseed alternative defaults. Such a development would open the way to consistent systemd-less Debian systems for those who like it, and the benefit for Debian as a whole would be a more powerful Blends framework. Doesn't it look like a nice ending to the story ? Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140703011421.gg8...@falafel.plessy.net
How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
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. 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 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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4wdyzvz.wl%...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4wdyzvz.wl%...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
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. I think you can just put Package: systemd Pin: origin Pin-Priority: -1 in your /etc/apt/preferences... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/bb6c30a51d68aa2e2b773dc4f26d8...@yourcmc.ru
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
❦ 1 juillet 2014 15:25 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr : 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. Not a systemd maintainer. On your particular problem, you should look at why systemd didn't initiate the shutdown when it detected you pressed the power button. I don't know enough of how systemd fits in the power management stack in Debian (and I miss such details), but I believe, you could modify /etc/systemd/logind.conf and restart systemd-logind. systemd being aimed at becoming the default init, it is natural that various other packages do not step on its tasks by executing various stuff. acpid is still useful outside those tasks as it allows to transmit ACPI events as keyboard events (and I suppose other things). Hence, we surely want it to continue to work with systemd. -- /* Identify the flock of penguins. */ 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/arch/alpha/kernel/setup.c signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, July 1, 2014 15:25, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: 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? May I suggest that you treat others the way you want to be treated? When you chose to use words like steathily, with have a strong connotation of bad faith, you do not start a constructive bug fixing process. The suggestion to just add conflicts is also not quite helpful. The responses from the systemd maintainers are indeed on the terse side, but I can imagine that your style of bug reporting does not invite our volunteers to spend more time on it. Cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/b728214cb18d13028ce5794bff7819c6.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: 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 I made such a dummy package, and Wookey wanted to upload it yesterday IIRC. It is not on https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html yet, though. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/louhif$qur$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 18:26:53 +0400 vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote: 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. I think you can just put Package: systemd Pin: origin Pin-Priority: -1 If what you actually intend is to retain sysvinit-core, it would need to be systemd-sysv -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:38:16PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: The responses from the systemd maintainers are indeed on the terse side, but I can imagine that your style of bug reporting does not invite our volunteers to spend more time on it. This is not a question of spending time. An upgrade broke functionality and purging systemd fixed this issue. That does not mean that it is a bug in systemd, but it surely is a bug somewhere, be it the dependencies (if systemd-shim is needed, why was it not installed during the upgrade?) or the code of some other package. Now, time is limited, but I don't have time right now is certainly not a reason to close a bug within three hours. Or, taking a different perspective: now that the issue is known, what is done to prevent another user from hitting the very same issue in the future? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140701152012.GA4890@t61
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
+++ Thorsten Glaser [2014-07-01 14:45 +]: Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: 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 I made such a dummy package, and Wookey wanted to upload it yesterday IIRC. It is not on https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html yet, though. Ah yes. E-busy. Just uploaded 'prevent-systemd'. Whilst it's sat in NEW, you can get it from: http://wookware.org/software/repo/ i.e deb http://wookware.org/software/repo/ sid main You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything systemdish. There may be a need for an intermediate package too, but lets see how this goes for people. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140701152301.gm10...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
gentle persuasion [...] is more in line with point 4 of the Debian Social Contract than [...] bullying? May I suggest that you treat others the way you want to be treated? I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social Contract. Are we to expect a higher standard of behaviour from a Debian Developer than from a random user who is pissed off because his system has just been broken? Or is being a Debian Developer power without responsibility, as some of your esteemed colleagues appear to believe? The suggestion to just add conflicts is also not quite helpful. I'm not sure I'm following. There was no reason whatsoever to install systemd on my system, yet it got installed and broke the ACPI scripts. To my untrained eyes, it looks like a conflict is missing somewhere. -- Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87simlytv8.wl%...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 01.07.2014 17:20, schrieb Thomas Weber: Or, taking a different perspective: now that the issue is known, what is done to prevent another user from hitting the very same issue in the future? Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim. The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is installed. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 01/07/14 17:20, Thomas Weber wrote: Or, taking a different perspective: now that the issue is known, what is done to prevent another user from hitting the very same issue in the future? I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=747535 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 01.07.2014 17:35, schrieb Juliusz Chroboczek: I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social Contract. I may remind you about [1] then. If you feel like you need to rant or vent, please do it someplace else or expect a terse answer like the one you got. [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_002 -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
* Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr, 2014-07-01, 15:25: I filed bug 753357 Why is this bug marked as fixed in systemd/204-9? -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140701160343.ga4...@jwilk.net
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Michael Biebl made an argument from authority: Am 01.07.2014 17:35, schrieb Juliusz Chroboczek: I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social Contract. I may remind you about [1] then. If you feel like you need to rant or vent, please do it someplace else or expect a terse answer like the one you got. Your answer wasn't *just* terse. Your answer was downright rude. Kind regards, – Miroslaw Baran -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/d834210ada34efc7aeca83a89e022...@hell.pl
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: The responses from the systemd maintainers are indeed on the terse side, but I can imagine that your style of bug reporting does not invite our volunteers to spend more time on it. The replies were not just terse, the replies were downright rude. Can we perhaps agree that the maintainers should not be unnecessarily rude? Kind regards – Jubal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/b8fa256c3779e8ce42a4f6c471f9e...@hell.pl
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 01/07/14, 05:35pm, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: gentle persuasion [...] is more in line with point 4 of the Debian Social Contract than [...] bullying? May I suggest that you treat others the way you want to be treated? I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social Contract. FYI, you are bound to https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct. The reason why that document exists is because the Social Contract has barely something about behaviour. Are we to expect a higher standard of behaviour from a Debian Developer than from a random user who is pissed off because his system has just been broken? Or is being a Debian Developer power without responsibility, as some of your esteemed colleagues appear to believe? Either Debian Developer or a regular user who's pissed of or happy, we expect the same higher standard. CoC applies to everyone. The suggestion to just add conflicts is also not quite helpful. I'm not sure I'm following. There was no reason whatsoever to install systemd on my system, yet it got installed and broke the ACPI scripts. To my untrained eyes, it looks like a conflict is missing somewhere. Knowing what exactly installed systemd in your system should be helpful. It's not like systemd got installed by itself without being a dependency of another package. Kind regards. -- Jose Luis Rivas | ghostbar The Debian Project → http://www.debian.org GPG D278 F9C1 5E54 61AA 3C1E 2FCD 13EC 43EE B9AC 8C43 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, July 1, 2014 17:35, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: gentle persuasion [...] is more in line with point 4 of the Debian Social Contract than [...] bullying? May I suggest that you treat others the way you want to be treated? I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social Contract. That you think that this highly formalistic argument determines that you should not have to keep yourself to high standards when reporting bugs, I think underlines exactly why you got a terse response. Are we to expect a higher standard of behaviour from a Debian Developer than from a random user who is pissed off because his system has just been broken? Or is being a Debian Developer power without responsibility, as some of your esteemed colleagues appear to believe? No, we expect a minimal standard of everyone that participates in the Debian ecosystem. I suggest you read the Debian code of conduct before interacting further with the volunteers that spend their own time to make a completely free operating system for you to use. Cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/fbd8137b157153492ac96d970c136bca.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 17:20, Thomas Weber wrote: On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:38:16PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: The responses from the systemd maintainers are indeed on the terse side, but I can imagine that your style of bug reporting does not invite our volunteers to spend more time on it. This is not a question of spending time. An upgrade broke functionality and purging systemd fixed this issue. That does not mean that it is a bug in systemd, but it surely is a bug somewhere, be it the dependencies (if systemd-shim is needed, why was it not installed during the upgrade?) or the code of some other package. Now, time is limited, but I don't have time right now is certainly not a reason to close a bug within three hours. Or, taking a different perspective: now that the issue is known, what is done to prevent another user from hitting the very same issue in the future? By reporting appropriate bug? If the power button ceased to work there should be a bug report about power button not working and not about preventing systemd to be installed. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404231839.20584.136601777.3c78a...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:03, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr, 2014-07-01, 15:25: I filed bug 753357 Why is this bug marked as fixed in systemd/204-9? I suggest to reassign this bug to acpi-support-base and stop this yet-another-senseless-flamewar-about-systemd in the beginning pretty please. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404232118.21941.136603961.75c50...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote: I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent. I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 01.07.2014 18:28, schrieb Ondřej Surý: On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:03, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr, 2014-07-01, 15:25: I filed bug 753357 Why is this bug marked as fixed in systemd/204-9? I suggest to reassign this bug to acpi-support-base and stop this yet-another-senseless-flamewar-about-systemd in the beginning pretty please. As explained elsewhere Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim. The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is installed. The behaviour of acpi-support-base is correct, there shouldn't be any bug filed against it. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
The replies were not just terse, the replies were downright rude. That's hardly the main problem with Michael's behaviour. I reported an actual bug, including conclusions that I got from fourty minutes of tracing the ACPI scripts. Michael closed it straight away, without investigating the issue. I reopened the bug, explaining the problem again. Michael closed it straight away again. I've filed hundreds of bugs against Debian over the last fifteen years. The kind of attitude exhibited by Michael is fairly rare, but when it happens, it harms the whole project by driving users away from the bug tracker. I therefore stand by my point that DDs should be held to higher standards than random users. -- Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87egy5yq9k.wl%...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:09, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote: I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent. I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd. Yes and we *have* release notes for this kind of information. O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404233608.29272.136613049.4b0b3...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 01.07.2014 18:53, schrieb Juliusz Chroboczek: Michael closed it straight away, without investigating the issue. Oh, I did. That's why I told you to install systemd-shim. It would be great if you can dial down your accusations a little. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 01/07/14 18:09, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote: I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent. I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd. Maybe desktops user don't care much about the init system as long as they can boot to the desktop. But I think that many sysadmins that are going to upgrade their servers from wheezy to jessie care about this. I bet that not few of them would want to stick with sysvinit for jessie at least. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Wookey wrote: You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything systemdish. Wookey, Please rename the systemd-must-die package to something neutral. Thank you. -- http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140701173407.GN23218@exolobe1
Re: Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd I do not care being tainted by systemd when it works. Actually on two very different machines it means no audio for me. On a NAS it means no boot(probably because of RAID10 fs in /etc/fstab), so I reverted it on all machines Bug for pulse is open for a while but so far no change. and BTW, rtkit does not work with systemd208, udsiks2 depends on libpam-systemd, and systemd-shim is incompatible with systemd-shim meaning usb key hotplus is now unavailable and rtkit also. I think that as long as the transition is not smooth, whithout any religious conveiction, people will complain. For me, the forced transition was introduced too early -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b2f20e.1070...@free.fr
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 06:09:08PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jul 01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote: I think that a critical debconf warning should be in place to avoid replacing the init system of users without prior explicit consent. I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd. I agree with you (and disagree with Russ) that we shouldn't give everyone a debconf prompt on upgrade. But you are willfully misrepresenting the problem. People care that *their system doesn't break*; users do not currently have confidence that upgrading to systemd won't break their system, and this thread started because of a bug that happened after upgrade. Finding such bugs, and seeing them closed with no action, does nothing to inspire further confidence that systemd is going to be a smooth upgrade. Whenever anyone expresses concern about systemd reliability on Debian, systemd apologists are quick to say that it works on their system. This is worth exactly nothing. A wet ball of string would boot 80% of system configurations; the question is, are we going to live up to Debian's good name and support the other 20%, or are we going to make every one of those other users fend for themselves? There needs to be a lot less sneering at users who are unhappy with systemd, and a lot more taking ownership of the real and actual issues users are running into on upgrade. In this particular case, the problem is a tough one to solve. systemd is pulled in by default on upgrade, which we want; but logind won't work unless there's a process running that provides the systemd dbus interface. There are two possible implementations of this interface: systemd-shim, which at present is only compatible with systemd-logind up to 204; and systemd itself, which obviously requires a reboot to take effect. I think the current default to pull in systemd-sysv and not systemd-shim is wrong, because of the problems introduced on upgrade before rebooting to the new init. But the systemd maintainers are anxious to update to a newer version in unstable, and while there are plans in Ubuntu to make systemd-shim support the interfaces needed for newer logind, this isn't ready yet. If we take systemd 208 into jessie, and systemd-shim compatibility doesn't land, this means an unavoidably bad experience for users pre-reboot on upgrade: the power button won't work (as shown), a desktop user will not be able to sanely re-login post logout (again due to logind), various things like brightness controls are AIUI likely to stop working. To deliver a proper upgrade experience in jessie, I believe the right answer is: - hold systemd back at 204 until systemd-shim is updated - switch the dependency from libpam-systemd to pull in systemd-shim, not just systemd-sysv - update sysvinit to pull in systemd-sysv by default - once systemd-shim supports the 208 interfaces, update systemd - post-jessie, drop the dependency on systemd-shim to a non-default alternative This would ensure that users' systems continue to work correctly on upgrade, rather than being left broken after reboot. At the same time, it should ensure that users who upgrade to jessie will by default get systemd as init on the first reboot, which is what we want. I don't believe there is a good argument for why we should take a newer upstream version of systemd for jessie if it means subjecting our users to pre-reboot breakage on upgrades. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
2014-07-01 19:38 GMT+02:00 Eric Valette eric.vale...@free.fr: I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd I do not care being tainted by systemd when it works. Actually on two very different machines it means no audio for me. On a NAS it means no boot(probably because of RAID10 fs in /etc/fstab), so I reverted it on all machines Bug for pulse is open for a while but so far no change. and BTW, rtkit does not work with systemd208, udsiks2 depends on libpam-systemd, and systemd-shim is incompatible with systemd-shim meaning usb key hotplus is now unavailable and rtkit also. I think that as long as the transition is not smooth, whithout any religious conveiction, people will complain. For me, the forced transition was introduced too early These are valid points, and thank you for reporting bugs! However, as unstable user, some breakage can be expected, and the point for transitioning early in unstable is to make the transition as smooth as possible when someone uprades Debian stable, which is not affected by init-system changes at all. So I think the transition was just at the right time to create a great Jessie release. Cheers, Matthias -- Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caknhny_e0p3_7+crdwbmopixlw0278so8qxbmufhhq3w9pg...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 2014-07-01, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote: Maybe desktops user don't care much about the init system as long as they can boot to the desktop. They care as long as everything works. And for everything works to keep on happening, we need a effective migration to systemd, or a army of developers to ensure everything keeps working. I still fail to see that army. (for example, with the newest upower and !systemd, the kde plasma desktop won't allow you to reboot/suspend/... the system. Having someone investigating it would be nice) But I think that many sysadmins that are going to upgrade their servers from wheezy to jessie care about this. I bet that not few of them would want to stick with sysvinit for jessie at least. The server sysadmins who cares about this reads release notes. Please. Let's keep it working for everyone. Systemd now. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/loustd$fi8$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 06:53:27PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: The replies were not just terse, the replies were downright rude. That's hardly the main problem with Michael's behaviour. I stand by what I said yesterday, in a different thread, but the same mailing list: # When a project the size of Debian makes a decision on a controversial # subject, it is natural, and expected, that there is vigorous debate # about the topic before a decision is reached. After that, however, if # the debate continues, or members of Debian keep trying to fight the # decision, or keep bringing it up over and over again, it hurts the # ability of the project to continue working. If every decision we make # needs to be re-discussed at the whim of any one disgruntled individual # for years to come, nobody's going to have fun. Juliusz, you concluded your bug report with the following paragraph: Folks, I understand that you're excited about systemd, but this sort of stealthy pulling in of code is something that really pisses people off. If I'd rather not be running 15 lines of code as pid 1, please respect my wishes. What you did was continue a multi-year-long flame war about systemd. That was not cool. Even were that not the case, you should have known that it would not help resolve the problem by being offensive to the people whose help you need to get things fixed, but you did it anyway. Was that wise? Did you deserve to be mistreated because of your impoliteness? No, you didn't, and, as it happens, I don't think you were. Michael gave you a constructive suggestion for how to deal with the situation, and even if was brief about it, I can't see that he was impolite about it. If you knowingly provoke people, and they don't jump to fulfil your demands on their free time, then I don't consider that to be rude. Juliusz: I've filed hundreds of bugs against Debian over the last fifteen years. The kind of attitude exhibited by Michael is fairly rare, but when it happens, it harms the whole project by driving users away from the bug tracker. I therefore stand by my point that DDs should be held to higher standards than random users. I think we should hold everyone to the same standard of behaviour. Anything else is rude. Now, can we please stop this thread? It has already pissed off enough people. -- http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140701180458.GO23218@exolobe1
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 01.07.2014 19:38, schrieb Eric Valette: I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd I do not care being tainted by systemd when it works. Actually on two very different machines it means no audio for me. On a NAS it means no boot(probably because of RAID10 fs in /etc/fstab), so I reverted it on all machines Have you filed a bug report for that? Bug for pulse is open for a while but so far no change. Which bug report is that? -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Miroslaw, unless you offer to ack as a front desk for bugs in systemd, then please go with your judgments elsewhere. Your judgmental comments are neither helpful nor welcome here. Thanks, Ondrej On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:17, Mirosław Baran wrote: Michael Biebl made an argument from authority: Am 01.07.2014 17:35, schrieb Juliusz Chroboczek: I am not a Debian Developer. I am not bound by the Social Contract. I may remind you about [1] then. If you feel like you need to rant or vent, please do it someplace else or expect a terse answer like the one you got. Your answer wasn't *just* terse. Your answer was downright rude. Kind regards, – Miroslaw Baran -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/d834210ada34efc7aeca83a89e022...@hell.pl -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404238532.4097.136641601.2e1a4...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Michael, On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:51, Michael Biebl wrote: Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim. The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is installed. The behaviour of acpi-support-base is correct, there shouldn't be any bug filed against it. please don't get me wrong, this is not an attack on systemd. There has to be a bug somewhere, if the power button can stop working in partial upgrades. Maybe the dependencies need to be tighten or conflict added or it just needs d/NEWS with explanation? Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404238681.4912.136642081.371fc...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 20:18, Ondřej Surý wrote: Michael, On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:51, Michael Biebl wrote: Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim. The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is installed. The behaviour of acpi-support-base is correct, there shouldn't be any bug filed against it. please don't get me wrong, this is not an attack on systemd. There has to be a bug somewhere, if the power button can stop working in partial upgrades. Maybe the dependencies need to be tighten or conflict added or it just needs d/NEWS with explanation? Ah, Steve has just posted an excellent explanation of the situation... O. -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404238880.5705.136643637.3e81f...@webmail.messagingengine.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
❦ 1 juillet 2014 10:53 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org : - hold systemd back at 204 until systemd-shim is updated The way user sessions work is quite different between 204 and 208. I would hope that Jessie will come with 208 for this reason. Holding systemd until systemd-shim is ready may prevent that. -- Don't just echo the code with comments - make every comment count. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan Plauger) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Michael closed it straight away, without investigating the issue. Oh, I did. That's why I told you to install systemd-shim. Now could you please reopen bug 753357, or at least allow me to do it? -- Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87zjgsykzv.wl%...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 01/07/2014 19:59, Matthias Klumpp wrote: These are valid points, and thank you for reporting bugs! However, as unstable user, some breakage can be expected, and the point for transitioning early in unstable is to make the transition as smooth as possible when someone uprades Debian stable, which is not affected by init-system changes at all. Sure. I also had bug with libc, X and so on in the past breaking the machine. Just my personal feeling is that it does currently break valid setup a bit easily to my taste (setup running for years on unstable + experimental while regularly updated). Running stable is fine *when you can*. Each user buying a recent AMD/ATI graphic cards or and AMD APU for an htpc needs experimental stuff to get video acceleration (glamor support is not even in unstable and radeonsi and later needs it). Support for recent Intel graphic feature is also problematic and vaapi is undergoing massive changes in th same area. You can indeed argue it is a way of rapidly collecting bugs but you better have to fix them rapidly enough or people will revert and/or hold their packages for not being annoyed until it stabilizes more and it will/may void the target. And again, I have no religious/sound opinion on which init system is better. As an old folk I'm a bit concerned about the size for maintainability reasons and the fact that it is almost already mandatory because more and more packages starts depending on it or making changes that implies systemd (like udisks2) but that's all. -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b30357.2070...@free.fr
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 1 July 2014 19:15:32 IST, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote: unless you offer to ack as a front desk for bugs in systemd, then please go with your judgments elsewhere. Your judgmental comments are neither helpful nor welcome here. My comment was factual and polite, thank you very much. Being a DD is not a free pass for being unnecessarily abrasive, and one does not get special blessing just by by having their key anointed by the keyring's grace. HTH, HAND – Mirosław Baran -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/77d611e1-6844-4d08-ab6d-4554b2600...@email.android.com
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 01.07.2014 20:21, schrieb Ondřej Surý: On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 20:18, Ondřej Surý wrote: Michael, On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:51, Michael Biebl wrote: Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim. The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is installed. The behaviour of acpi-support-base is correct, there shouldn't be any bug filed against it. please don't get me wrong, this is not an attack on systemd. There has to be a bug somewhere, if the power button can stop working in partial upgrades. Maybe the dependencies need to be tighten or conflict added or it just needs d/NEWS with explanation? Ah, Steve has just posted an excellent explanation of the situation... As I mentioned, the bug reporter didn't have systemd-sysv or systemd-shim installed. In 204-9 we tightend the dependencies of libpam-systemd to depend on systemd-sysv | systemd-shim. That's the reason why this bug is marked as fixed in 204-9 and I told him to install systemd-shim manually. We could extend the check in acpi-support-base to test for the existence of the systemd-shim binary or the /run/systemd/system directory (which only exists if systemd is PID 1). This would also cover the upgrade case Steve mentioned. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Which bug report is that? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=748651 I will try to add the requested debug log ASAP. Dunno where I got the initial bogus trace command from. Probably not invented it. --eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b306c1.7050...@free.fr
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 20:08:35 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Am 01.07.2014 19:38, schrieb Eric Valette: I think that this would be an annoying waste of time for most users, since only a few people care so much about not being tainted by systemd I do not care being tainted by systemd when it works. Actually on two very different machines it means no audio for me. On a NAS it means no boot(probably because of RAID10 fs in /etc/fstab), so I reverted it on all machines Have you filed a bug report for that? Bug for pulse is open for a while but so far no change. Which bug report is that? #748651, any help is appreciated -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lov114$1p5$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:23:09PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: ❦ 1 juillet 2014 10:53 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org : - hold systemd back at 204 until systemd-shim is updated The way user sessions work is quite different between 204 and 208. I would hope that Jessie will come with 208 for this reason. Holding systemd until systemd-shim is ready may prevent that. Yes, you're right that this is a risk. The risk of this happening if we stick with systemd 204 until systemd-shim is ready is roughly the same as the risk of our users having broken desktops on upgrade if we move to systemd 208 and systemd-shim is not ready. The question is which of these is a worse outcome for the jessie release. I come down firmly on the side that breaking desktops on upgrade is a worse outcome than being behind on the latest and greatest user session interfaces. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
systemd-shim [Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?]
Am 01.07.2014 19:53, schrieb Steve Langasek: new init. But the systemd maintainers are anxious to update to a newer version in unstable, and while there are plans in Ubuntu to make systemd-shim support the interfaces needed for newer logind, this isn't ready yet. This issue has been known since December 2013 and was also discussed during the ctte debate. Tollef back then promised to hold back any updates until May 2014. We are way past that date. And still, there are just plans to update systemd-shim, no concrete code. As of this writing 204, is already over 1 year old and will be grossly outdated once jessie releases. It also misses a lot of important functionality. That missing functionality is holding back other maintainers, like the GNOME maintainers which need a newer logind for 3.12 or the AppArmor folks, which want the AppArmorProfile support in v210. I do not think it's reasonable to hold back any updates of systemd in the hope that an updated systemd-shim eventually appears. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Hi Michael, On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 05:37:55PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Am 01.07.2014 17:20, schrieb Thomas Weber: Or, taking a different perspective: now that the issue is known, what is done to prevent another user from hitting the very same issue in the future? Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim. The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is installed. Ok, but assuming that is the fix (install systemd-sysv or systemd-shim), how did bug #7533357 happen? Notwithstanding Juliusz's desire to not have systemd installed (which I don't expect us to address), if both of those packages were missing from the system, then something is buggy. Juliusz, can you please paste your apt logs showing what pulled systemd in on the system? If something is depending on systemd directly without either systemd-sysv or systemd-shim, that something is buggy. If systemd-sysv *was* installed and logind wasn't working, this probably points to the bug with logind being broken before reboot to systemd. However, acpi-support-base also needs to make sure that logind is functional before delegating control of the power button to it. And for that, I see that acpi-support 0.141-4 introduced a change in unstable *yesterday* to deal with exactly this problem: instead of only checking for a running logind, acpi-support-base now checks the systemd dbus interface to verify that logind is running and usable. So it's possible that Juliusz's issue is a duplicate of bug #752781. On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 07:19:26PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Am 01.07.2014 18:53, schrieb Juliusz Chroboczek: Michael closed it straight away, without investigating the issue. Oh, I did. That's why I told you to install systemd-shim. It should not be the user's responsibility to install this package manually to get back to a working system. On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 06:51:22PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim. The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is installed. The behaviour of acpi-support-base is correct, there shouldn't be any bug filed against it. Well, I think the behavior of acpi-support-base is *now* correct in unstable, in response to bug #752781. I don't think it's correct in testing. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 01.07.2014 21:06, schrieb Eric Valette: Which bug report is that? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=748651 Ok, thanks for sharing. As for the issue you encountered on your NAS using RAID10: Please do file a bug report and we will follow up there Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 01.07.2014 21:33, schrieb Steve Langasek: Ok, thanks for this clarification. I didn't realize this dependency had not yet made it into testing. FWIW, from reading the bug log, it was not clear to me that you were taking responsibility for this bug and stating that it had been fixed in systemd 204-9. In fact, I was completely puzzled that the versioned bug closure. I would suggest that a little more verbosity here might have spared us all a bit of angst. Indeed, I take the blame for my verbosity here. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Am 01.07.2014 21:34, schrieb Michael Biebl: Indeed, I take the blame for my verbosity here. Or non-verbosity, if you so wish. I do have to add that the tone of the bug report didn't really inspire me to write paragraphs of explanations. You know, I'm also just a human. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:57:37PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Am 01.07.2014 20:21, schrieb Ondřej Surý: On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 20:18, Ondřej Surý wrote: Michael, On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 18:51, Michael Biebl wrote: Install systemd-sysv for systemd-shim. The libpam-systemd package in 204-9 ensures that either of the two is installed. The behaviour of acpi-support-base is correct, there shouldn't be any bug filed against it. please don't get me wrong, this is not an attack on systemd. There has to be a bug somewhere, if the power button can stop working in partial upgrades. Maybe the dependencies need to be tighten or conflict added or it just needs d/NEWS with explanation? Ah, Steve has just posted an excellent explanation of the situation... As I mentioned, the bug reporter didn't have systemd-sysv or systemd-shim installed. In 204-9 we tightend the dependencies of libpam-systemd to depend on systemd-sysv | systemd-shim. That's the reason why this bug is marked as fixed in 204-9 and I told him to install systemd-shim manually. Ok, thanks for this clarification. I didn't realize this dependency had not yet made it into testing. FWIW, from reading the bug log, it was not clear to me that you were taking responsibility for this bug and stating that it had been fixed in systemd 204-9. In fact, I was completely puzzled that the versioned bug closure. I would suggest that a little more verbosity here might have spared us all a bit of angst. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 2014-07-01, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: The question is which of these is a worse outcome for the jessie release. I come down firmly on the side that breaking desktops on upgrade is a worse outcome than being behind on the latest and greatest user session interface= s. We already have broken desktops-on-upgrade with current systemd-shim in the archive. And it is even broken after reboot. It might be bugs in the desktop related packages, but it is also a very low priority one. Also, post-upgrade-pre-reboot systems has had issues since forever, and I think even the upgrade notes recommends to not dist-upgrade from within X. So, where do we want to put our resources? Improving the actual experience once fully upgraded and rebooted? Or ensure a better experience when in the middle of the upgrade and not yet rebooted? I know where I would put the resources I can allocate. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lov38o$2ah$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Juliusz, can you please paste your apt logs showing what pulled systemd in on the system? Sent by private mail. If anyone else wants a copy, please drop me a note. -- Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87tx70yhzr.wl%...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Re: systemd-shim [Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?]
]] Michael Biebl Am 01.07.2014 19:53, schrieb Steve Langasek: new init. But the systemd maintainers are anxious to update to a newer version in unstable, and while there are plans in Ubuntu to make systemd-shim support the interfaces needed for newer logind, this isn't ready yet. This issue has been known since December 2013 and was also discussed during the ctte debate. Tollef back then promised to hold back any updates until May 2014. We are way past that date. Just as a heads-up: We're planning on making 208 hit unstable once 204-9 is in testing, and then follow up with newer versions once we deem they are ready. Cc-ed to systemd-shim@packages so those maintainers are explicitly aware. Cheers, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87ha30rgte@xoog.err.no
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 13624 March 1977, Lars Wirzenius wrote: You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything systemdish. Please rename the systemd-must-die package to something neutral. Thank you. A package with this name wont ever appear in the archive, and I just rejected it. -- bye, Joerg I’ve figured out an alternative to giving up my beer. Basically, we become a family of travelling acrobats. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87zjgssuxa@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 07:47:36PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2014-07-01, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: The question is which of these is a worse outcome for the jessie release. I come down firmly on the side that breaking desktops on upgrade is a worse outcome than being behind on the latest and greatest user session interface= s. We already have broken desktops-on-upgrade with current systemd-shim in the archive. And it is even broken after reboot. https://bugs.debian.org/src:systemd-shim Show me a bug report, not FUD. It might be bugs in the desktop related packages, but it is also a very low priority one. The bugs are almost certainly not specific to systemd-shim. It'd be just peachy if the desktop maintainers would stop blaming systemd-shim for all their bugs without testing. Also, post-upgrade-pre-reboot systems has had issues since forever, No. There have been very few instances in which the system was left in an unusable state after a dist-upgrade, even for desktops. Stop making excuses for delivering a poor upgrade experience to our users. and I think even the upgrade notes recommends to not dist-upgrade from within X. This was written at a time when X itself was considered flaky enough that it posed a risk to the user's ability to complete the upgrade. After years of improvements to X, careful rewrites of display managers to not restart sessions on upgrade, and fixes to PAM + screensavers to ensure users are not locked out of their desktop mid-upgrade, there is no longer a good reason for such a warning. Unless we bring one back by letting systemd + desktop environments screw us over anew. I know where I would put the resources I can allocate. Into mailing list threads telling us how we shouldn't expect smooth upgrades from Debian? This is a race to the bottom. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 22:09 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: On 13624 March 1977, Lars Wirzenius wrote: You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything systemdish. Please rename the systemd-must-die package to something neutral. Thank you. A package with this name wont ever appear in the archive, and I just rejected it. What about systemd-nogo or nogo-systemd, alternately just no-systemd? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1404248307.31104.23.camel@PackardBell-PC
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
On 2014-07-01, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: https://bugs.debian.org/src:systemd-shim Show me a bug report, not FUD. I'd rather point to the likely-faulty code. it is likely in or around src:kde-workspace/powerdevil/daemon/backends/upower/powerdevilupowerbackend.cpp when checking for suspend capabilities with upower from experimental. Something in there doesn't properly detect that systemd-shim + logind actually can let you suspend the machine (and upower 0.99 has delegated it to logind). Also, post-upgrade-pre-reboot systems has had issues since forever, No. There have been very few instances in which the system was left in an unusable state after a dist-upgrade, even for desktops. Try do a update of your kde-plasma-desktop across where the internal on-disk data cache changes (at least every y in x.y.z, and sometimes in .z releases). The web browser stops working, the email application stops working, anything that uses the on-disk caches for looking up their plugins ceases to work. This is how it has been as long as I've been around. and I think even the upgrade notes recommends to not dist-upgrade from within X. This was written at a time when X itself was considered flaky enough that it posed a risk to the user's ability to complete the upgrade. After years of |4.1.5. Prepare a safe environment for the upgrade | |The distribution upgrade should be done either locally from a textmode |virtual console (or a directly connected serial terminal), or remotely |via an ssh link. Unless we bring one back by letting systemd + desktop environments screw us over anew. Here is nothing new. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lov93v$c79$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: systemd-shim [Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?]
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote: ]] Michael Biebl Am 01.07.2014 19:53, schrieb Steve Langasek: new init. But the systemd maintainers are anxious to update to a newer version in unstable, and while there are plans in Ubuntu to make systemd-shim support the interfaces needed for newer logind, this isn't ready yet. This issue has been known since December 2013 and was also discussed during the ctte debate. Tollef back then promised to hold back any updates until May 2014. We are way past that date. Just as a heads-up: We're planning on making 208 hit unstable once 204-9 is in testing, and then follow up with newer versions once we deem they are ready. Cc-ed to systemd-shim@packages so those maintainers are explicitly aware. Do you mean 204-14? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caa77j2dvkyrtdglt9rez4-uobefrgvynfzs9jcnotcaegff...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd-shim [Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?]
Am 02.07.2014 00:09, schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe: On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote: Just as a heads-up: We're planning on making 208 hit unstable once 204-9 is in testing, and then follow up with newer versions once we deem they are ready. Do you mean 204-14? You are correct, Tollef meant the current version in unstable, which is 204-14. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
+++ Lars Wirzenius [2014-07-01 18:34 +0100]: On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Wookey wrote: You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything systemdish. Wookey, Please rename the systemd-must-die package to something neutral. Thank you. OK. I did rename the source package, but I liked the binary and thought anyone else who actually wanted this would enjoy it too, so it seemed appropriate despite not being entirely 'PC'. I think some people are failing to see the humour in this name (and Dawkins knows we could use some humour round this subject), but I guess if it's not going to be allowed then it's not going to be allowed. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140701231331.gs10...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Also, post-upgrade-pre-reboot systems has had issues since forever, No. There have been very few instances in which the system was left in an unusable state after a dist-upgrade, even for desktops. On desktops, upgrades of iceweasel and icedove regularly break currently running instances of these programs in subtle ways (e.g. download status window no longer opens). Best, -Nikolaus -- GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oax8658h@rath.org
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com writes: What about systemd-nogo or nogo-systemd, alternately just no-systemd? I have a ‘no-mono’ package (not hosted anywhere; I welcome contact from anyone who wants to upload it). I would expect ‘prevent-…’ or ‘no-…’ as the name of such packages. -- \ “I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in | `\ my body. Then I realized who was telling me this.” —Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85fvikwsu5@benfinney.id.au
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com writes: But I think that many sysadmins that are going to upgrade their servers from wheezy to jessie care about this. Indeed. I care very much about ensuring that systemd is installed on my servers, as I think the benefits for servers are at least as substantial than the benefits for desktops. I bet that not few of them would want to stick with sysvinit for jessie at least. I would be stunned. And I've talked about this with a fair number of large-site systems administrators. sysvinit is very, very old, and it shows. systemd just solves a whole ton of important problems that are quite interesting to servers. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8761jgiibh@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org writes: Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Also, post-upgrade-pre-reboot systems has had issues since forever, No. There have been very few instances in which the system was left in an unusable state after a dist-upgrade, even for desktops. On desktops, upgrades of iceweasel and icedove regularly break currently running instances of these programs in subtle ways (e.g. download status window no longer opens). And I believe this whole thread started with a discussion of the power button no longer working. I have seen that sort of behavior off and on for years after dist-upgrade. Certain types of upgrades have a tendency to interfere with power management until the system has been rebooted. If folks are tracking down those bugs and want to fix them, that's great, but I've never bothered to file that bug because it struck me as so unimportant that it wasn't worth my time to write up a bug report. I expect to have to reboot the system cleanly after a variety of types of upgrades (kernel upgrades, for example, obviously); a few more isn't something I even notice. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871tu4ii2m@windlord.stanford.edu