On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:57 PM Eli Schwartz via arch-projects <arch-projects@archlinux.org> wrote: > > On 08/03/2018 01:48 PM, Jouke Witteveen via arch-projects wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I cannot send to arch-dev-public and don't know where to post this > > otherwise, so I'll just put this out here. > > > > With systemd 239, a deprecation message is printed in the journal for > > enabled netctl profiles (FS#59494). This currently has no effect on > > the functionality of either systemd or netctl. Nevertheless, the next > > version of netctl, which is not yet released, will move away from the > > deprecated features. However, the warnings are caused by unit files > > generated by netctl, so an update will not simply make the warnings go > > away. > > Here is a draft for a news post to accompany the next version of > > netctl down the line. > > > > Regards, > > - Jouke > > ---- > > Title: netctl 1.18 may require manual intervention > > > > In response to the explicit deprecation of .include statements in > > systemd units, netctl has modified its unit management. This change > > only affects individually enabled netctl profiles. To use the new > > management scheme, all enabled profiles must be reenabled after > > updating netctl. This can be done through `netctl reenable <profile>`. > > No action is needed for the automatic netctl services. > > Why would it need manual intervention? Does netctl not work if you use > the old format? From systemd's side, the whole reason it is a > deprecation warning is because it will continue to work for some time > until they finally ditch it entirely. > > I would assume that existing netctl profiles which aren't reenabled > would continue to successfully use the old, deprecated unit files?
Indeed, I expect the generated units to continue to work for a little longer, but at https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/8530 there is already a suggestion to proceed the deprecation further. I think it is nice to tell people what to do if they are bothered by the deprecation warning in their logs. Maybe in a different wording, stressing that nothing will break (for now) if you don't reenable your profiles? Regards, - Jouke