On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:42PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 18:53 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > [ Adding debian-boot@lists.debian.org back. ] > > > > Sorry about that. > > > > > This was intentionally done because upstream added systemd > > > dependency > > > some time ago. For Jessie, I had disabled systemd support, but now, > > > it > > > makes sense to have it, and align with upstream and other > > > distributions.
For the sake of derivatives without systemd, you might see if it's practical to leave the systemd dependency optional. -- hendrik > > > > > > So, I think the real question is about why libsystemd0 does not > > > have a > > > udeb ? > > > > > > systemd maintainers should provide that input. > > > > Some input from someone who doesn't know a thing about systemd or > > multipath: libmultipath.so.0 has a NEEDED entry on libsystemd.so.0, > > which seems to only define symbols named sd_* (which seems fair). The > > only use I see in libmultipath.so.0 is sd_listen_fds. > > > > Its manpage says: > > > > sd_listen_fds() shall be called by a daemon to check for file > > descriptors passed by the init system as part of the socket > > -based > > activation logic. > > > > There's no systemd in d-i, so there's no socket-based activation > > logic, > > and you can't rely on that in your multipath udeb. > > > Hmmm... I'll look into it later. But when you say "No systemd in d-i", > does it mean that is how it is going to remain ? > > -- > Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs > Debian - The Universal Operating System