Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.rc > #303972 > unrolled thread

Bug#993316: systemd: missing /lib/systemd/system/rpcbind.service file

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.rc

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#993316: systemd: missing /lib/systemd/system/rpcbind.service file Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> - 2021-08-31 18:30 +0200
    Bug#993316: systemd: missing /lib/systemd/system/rpcbind.service file Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> - 2021-08-31 20:30 +0200

#303972 — Bug#993316: systemd: missing /lib/systemd/system/rpcbind.service file

Michael Biebl:
> Am 30.08.21 um 18:31 schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
>> Package: systemd
>> Version: 247.9-1
>> Severity: critical
>> Justification: breaks unrelated software
>>
>> systemd provides a dangling symlink:
>>
>> $ ls -l /lib/systemd/system/portmap.service
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 2021-08-17 17:31:36
>> /lib/systemd/system/portmap.service -> rpcbind.service
>> $ ls -L /lib/systemd/system/portmap.service
>> ls: cannot access '/lib/systemd/system/portmap.service': No such file
>> or directory
> 
> This symlink is created via
> 
> dh_link lib/systemd/system/rpcbind.service
> lib/systemd/system/portmap.service
> 
> I wonder if debhelper can do something about this or if this is one of
> the cases where the package is best updated manually.
> 
> I suspect we have a few packages which create such aliasing symlinks via
> *.links files or explicit calls to dh_link
> 
> 
> Niels, what's your thought on this?
> 
> 
>> This breaks checkrestart:
> 
> [...]
> 
> Regards,
> Michael
> 

My thought is that this is not something I want in dh_link - dh_link has
no business second guessing the link values it gets.  Since dh_link runs
after dh_installsystemd, then we cannot even rely on dh_installsystemd
to perform a fix up either.

Which begins to smell like that either people have to update their
dh_links calls/configuration OR we roll back the dh_installsystemd
change to move to /usr.  I am not particular fan of either.  :-/

Nevertheless, I am inclined to do a rollback and then punt on the "/ ->
/usr" migration track for now.

~Niels

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#303981

Michael Biebl:
> Hi Niels
> 
> Am 31.08.21 um 18:07 schrieb Niels Thykier:
> 
>> My thought is that this is not something I want in dh_link - dh_link has
>> no business second guessing the link values it gets.  Since dh_link runs
>> after dh_installsystemd, then we cannot even rely on dh_installsystemd
>> to perform a fix up either.
> 
> Nod.
> 
>> Which begins to smell like that either people have to update their
>> dh_links calls/configuration OR we roll back the dh_installsystemd
>> change to move to /usr.  I am not particular fan of either.  :-/
>>
>> Nevertheless, I am inclined to do a rollback and then punt on the "/ ->
>> /usr" migration track for now.
> 
> I'll see if I can compile a list of possibly affected packages.
> If the number is low enough, I think updating the symlink manually is
> probably ok.
> 
> Regards,
> Michael
> 
> 

I appreciate it, but I think we should be careful here with the manual
update.  If consensus on debian-devel is that debhelper should roll this
back, then we will break these packages again.

I do not think that would make us popular... :-/

~Niels

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.rc

csiph-web