Hello Bastian Blank. Thanks for finally giving some feedback on this bug report.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 07:47:56PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 01:31:49PM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > > Hope this helps. Would be much appreciated if we could resolve this > > bug report (very) soon. I'd like to avoid NMUing this package but > > if progress is blocked on this bug report I'll go ahead if there's > > no feedback by then. > > Did you at least test it once? My gut say: no. Then your gut is misleading you. I've tested this as best as I could. I don't have access to a cluster so could not fully test it but I've done my best to verify it should run thing similarly to how the init script starts things. I was hoping that was not completely broken but maybe I made a mistake. > > > --- lvm2-2.02.153/debian/patches/clvm-systemd-unit-debian-adaptions.patch > > 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 > > +++ lvm2-2.02.153/debian/patches/clvm-systemd-unit-debian-adaptions.patch > > 2016-06-13 13:05:16.000000000 +0200 > > There is already a patch for systemd modifications, use it. Could you please give some details? I've obviously not found it otherwise I wouldn't have wasted so much of my time on this. Why not use the upstream units? Why has this patch not been referenced in this bug report? How are people going to find out about it if we don't use the bug tracking system to record information on what's going on? Please feel free to post regular (weekly?) status updates to this bug report about progress you're making on this issue including all the details that could help avoid duplicate work and wasted time. > > > +--- a/scripts/lvm2_clvmd_systemd_red_hat.service.in > > ++++ b/scripts/lvm2_clvmd_systemd_red_hat.service.in > > +@@ -1,9 +1,10 @@ > > + [Unit] > > + Description=Clustered LVM daemon > > + Documentation=man:clvmd(8) > > +-After=dlm.service corosync.service > > ++After=cman.service corosync.service > > Where did you find a cman.service? The package does not even build cman > support. I found cman in the (Debian) init script. It's referenced under Should-Start. This LSB header maps to the After= and Wants= systemd unit directives. This is a loose "best effort" relationship, contrary to the Requires-Start LSB header which would map to the stricter "Requires=" (and After=) systemd unit directives which actually requires the unit to successfully start up. As the aim is to mask the init script with a matching service it should really describe basically the same things. If you have specific pointers about what's wrong I'd like to hear them, otherwise I can't really do much else than trust whats written in the init script. I have no better description of what the service really wants and how to write its dependencies/relationships than that. As was mentioned in the initial bug report there are people willing to help you out if you reach out and describe what it is that your service actually needs/wants/depends-on/provides, but lacking that information the best we can do to help is to try to interpret your init script and assume that's correct (but there are several signs of it not being, including lintian even detecting outstanding issues automatically, but without any other information it's not easy to try to help you out. At the current state I don't see much I can do at all to improve the situation further so rely on your cooperation. An alternative approach would be to simply drop building the clvm binary from src:lvm2 for now given it seems, which you already acknowledged, need a complete overhaul to get in shape and restore it once there's someone interested in giving it the maintenance work it needs/lacked). Fwiw, This bug in clvm is actually breaking users systems and gets "random" services removed from the startup breaking their systems. I'm inclined to raise the severity to grave because of this. from upstream which did not have the issue at all). Regards, Andreas Henriksson