#716812 asks for binfmt-support to be disabled when systemd is present, because systemd-binfmt exists. The two have a sort of soft conflict; I'm sure it's possible to run both, but having two programs configure the same kernel facility is bound to be confusing sooner or later, so it would certainly be good to come up with a coherent resolution.
As I explain in the bug [1], I think that the facilities provided by binfmt-support are objectively superior; and even if they were broadly equivalent, I'd still question the utility of converting packages from an interface that's been well-established in Debian for over ten years. What is the systemd maintainers' position on this bug? I bring it up here mainly because it's an interesting example of integration. Tollef said during the committee's last meeting on IRC that he hadn't thought much about binfmt before, so perhaps this is just a loose end. For what it's worth, it doesn't look terribly difficult to make binfmt-support also support the path names used by systemd-binfmt, since the configuration is essentially a subset of what binfmt-support can handle; it would require a bit of thought to do well, of course. If people think it's important (e.g. because upstream packages are starting to ship files in the systemd-binfmt paths) then I can certainly look into that. And as I said in the bug I'd be happy to include systemd configuration in the same way that I've already included Upstart configuration; if I get time over Christmas I may manage to do this myself in the VM that Steve provided, as part of gaining practical experience with systemd. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=716812#15 -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131226003820.ga2...@riva.ucam.org
