Bug#1101532: systemd: unable to migrate to Testing because of removed packages

[Luca Boccassi]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 22:07, Noah Meyerhans <noahm at debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 08:59:44PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > > Do the cloud images use avahi at all? Assuming I'm looking at the right
> > > > manifest:
> > > >
> > > > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/cloud/trixie/daily/20250324-2061/debian-13-generic-amd64-daily-20250324-2061.json
> > >
> > > No, in fact most cloud environments don't support multicast networking
> > > at all, so disabling it is entirely safe.
> > >
> > > > it seems not, so how about this: I'll take a personal risk and we can
> > > > try once more with the pkg conflict. I'll reinstate the package, with
> > > > an added "Conflicts: avahi-daemon" so that users have to choose one or
> > > > the other, and avahi is the default so it always wins unless someone
> > > > has very specific and customized use cases like yours.
> > >
> > > That works for me.
> > >
> > > > If everything goes fine, then all good. If instead the TC escalates
> > > > again to DAM, then I'll remove the package again, and work to find an
> > > > alternative that you can use with networkd in the cloud images, and try
> > > > and find time to implement it.
> > > >
> > > > How does this sound?
> > >
> > > Well, we obviously would prefer to find a solution that doesn't involve
> > > removing networkd altogether, should it come to that, but I'd hope we
> > > don't get to that point.
> >
> > LOL, he already escalated, not even had time to rinse the changes
> > through the CI and he already got them to send a warning. Guess he had
> > the complaint ready to send to DAM in the draft folder.
> >
> > That answers the question of whether it's safe to add back resolved
> > then - you mentioned you don't need the stub resolver, but just
> > something to manage dhcp -> networkd -> resolve.conf, right? I think I
> > can cook something up, I'll get on that next, who needs sleep anyway
>
> Please let's not get ahead of ourselves.  I think Stefano was simply
> pointing out something that had happned in the past, not any new DAM
> involvement.

Sorry I should have been clearer: when I said warning, I literally
meant it, and I was not talking about Stefano. An hour after sending
the previous message, and while I was already working to add the
package back (proof:
https://salsa.debian.org/bluca/systemd/-/commit/5067878f3a691fb7a1dd1df30ca9c78935c50479
), this loveliness popped up in my inbox:

date: 1 Apr 2025, 21:46
subject: DAM warning for continuing to ignore Technical Committee decisions