Bug#983569: [Pkg-net-snmp-devel] Bug#983569: net-snmp: please enable systemd integration
wf...@debian.org writes: > Turns out the upstream socket activation code does not include UDP. > I addressed that in the merge request as well. For what it's worth, net-snmp upstream merged the patch from https://github.com/net-snmp/net-snmp/pull/274. -- Regards, Feri
Bug#983569: [Pkg-net-snmp-devel] Bug#983569: net-snmp: please enable systemd integration
wf...@debian.org writes: > Craig Small writes: > >> Also, how confident are you writing unit files? I can write them but must >> admit I don't fully understand some of the more exotic features such as >> socket activation. > > My on-hands experience with socket activation is rather limited, but the > concept is not new, inetd did the trick in a more limited way. The > technology is widely used and there's even a short snmptrapd.socket > upstream, albeit with a somewhat confusing comment about matching. > > Aside, I'd recommend using Type=exec everywhere instead of (the default) > Type=simple for the sake of better error reporting. I opened https://salsa.debian.org/debian/net-snmp/-/merge_requests/8 with all these changes and more. And with a new autopkgtest. :) >> The net-snmp upstream seems to think you only should do socket >> activation for snmptrapd only, but I think you are only targeting that >> one anyway. > > Yes. Turns out the upstream socket activation code does not include UDP. I addressed that in the merge request as well. Unfortunately this makes the change rather bigger than I expected originally. -- Regards, Feri
Bug#983569: [Pkg-net-snmp-devel] Bug#983569: net-snmp: please enable systemd integration
Craig Small writes: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 23:12, Ferenc Wágner wrote: > >> file. If you aren't comfortable with changing the unit files now, >> shortly before hard freeze, at least enabling support in the daemons >> would still be very useful and also very easy with the --with-systemd >> configure flag. That wouldn't change behavior, only enable taking >> advantage of the support via local configuration. If you're interested, >> I'm willing to open a merge request for easier review. The Salsa CI >> passed on my fork with the trivial change. > > Do you know if anything is linked to a systemd library (therefore the > dependencies change) is that is enabled? Hi Craig, No, the necessary systemd code is included in snmplib/sd-daemon.c and appears in libnetsnmp.so, so the new binaries aren't linked against libsystemd. > Also, how confident are you writing unit files? I can write them but must > admit I don't fully understand some of the more exotic features such as > socket activation. My on-hands experience with socket activation is rather limited, but the concept is not new, inetd did the trick in a more limited way. The technology is widely used and there's even a short snmptrapd.socket upstream, albeit with a somewhat confusing comment about matching. Aside, I'd recommend using Type=exec everywhere instead of (the default) Type=simple for the sake of better error reporting. > The net-snmp upstream seems to think you only should do socket > activation for snmptrapd only, but I think you are only targeting that > one anyway. Yes. > A merge request on salsa seems the easiest way for me. If its not too big > an impact then it might be able to get it in before the freeze. I opened the simplest possible merge request based on the tree I did my testing on. It does not touch the unit files. I'm afraid whatever we do, we'll have to get a manual unblock from the release team, if they keep to their schedule (and they'll probably do so). -- Regards, Feri
Bug#983569: [Pkg-net-snmp-devel] Bug#983569: net-snmp: please enable systemd integration
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 23:12, Ferenc Wágner wrote: > file. If you aren't comfortable with changing the unit files now, > shortly before hard freeze, at least enabling support in the daemons > would still be very useful and also very easy with the --with-systemd > configure flag. That wouldn't change behavior, only enable taking > advantage of the support via local configuration. If you're interested, > I'm willing to open a merge request for easier review. The Salsa CI > passed on my fork with the trivial change. > Hi Feri, Do you know if anything is linked to a systemd library (therefore the dependencies change) is that is enabled? Also, how confident are you writing unit files? I can write them but must admit I don't fully understand some of the more exotic features such as socket activation. The net-snmp upstream seems to think you only should do socket activation for snmptrapd only, but I think you are only targeting that one anyway. A merge request on salsa seems the easiest way for me. If its not too big an impact then it might be able to get it in before the freeze. - Craig
