Bug#992711: debhelper: Please provide backport for bullseye

[Mattia Rizzolo]

We are talking about this 2-line change in update-rc.d:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/init-system-helpers/-/commit/552e993488a403bf88aa342f73bf0b22ce62ff16

I think it's feasible to add that in buster in the next point release, and
with it allow debhelper &co to safely move the .service files also in
bullseye-backports.

Wouldn't you consider this option?

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 9:42 pm Niels Thykier, <niels at thykier.net> wrote:

> Michael Biebl:
> > Hi Niels
> >
> > Am 23.08.21 um 08:19 schrieb Niels Thykier:
> >> [...]
> >
> > systemd in buster (v241) does support reading unit files from
> > /usr/lib/systemd/system (see systemd-analyze unit-paths).
> > The changes to init-system-helpers (namely update-rc.d) to also consider
> > unit files in /usr/lib/systemd/system was added in 1.58, i.e. is
> > currently only available in bullseye.
> >
> > This code path in update-rc.d is only used for older compat levels
> > though. Newer debhelper versions disentangled dh_installinit and
> > dh_installsystemd and we don't use update-rc.d if
> > --skip-systemd-native is used, see commit
> > cba2a8a6ea64773e61ab41c218853ee729656650 in debhelper.
> >
>
> Thanks for the analysis. :)
>
> > Also, the code in update-rc.d is only a fallback when the "real"
> > systemctl is not available to create the enablement symlinks.
> >
> > If we hit this code path and update-rc.d does not find the .service
> > file, it silently skips the enablement of the service. The package
> > should still install successfully.
> >
> > So is it safe? I'd say reasonably so.
> >
>
> My reptile brain reaction to this is that it smells like "fails to
> install correctly and failing to declare to do so" if we do not enable a
> system when we should have.
>
> I get that most installations that do not have systemd are unlikely to
> switch to systemd later but I do want it to "just work(tm)".
>
> > Question is, if we should start moving unit files in
> > bullseye(-backports) where everything is installed in /lib from a
> > consistency PoV.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Michael
> >
>
> That is the crux of this request.  The backport was requested to ensure
> consistency between bullseye and buster builds (see the OP for details;
> I omitted them in my forward to you as I thought they were irrelevant to
> my question).  Personally, it is easier for me if both cases use the
> same path but only if works for -backports as well.  If we are not
> certain it is safe, then I will look at using /lib for -backports even
> if it means I cannot comply with this request.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Niels
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-systemd-maintainers/attachments/20210823/c68e68c4/attachment.htm>