Am 05.10.22 um 16:08 schrieb Arnaud Rebillout:
On 05/10/2022 16:58, Christopher Obbard wrote:Hi Arnaud,Thanks for shedding the extra light. This is not a nice bug ! I think we should ask the systemd maintainer if they'd accept a patch to make the enabling of systemd-resolved service a manual operation, or at least to split the binary into a separate package, something like systemd-standalone-resolved ?Dear systemd maintainers,the packages fakemachine & debos (which uses fakemachine) are facing an issue now that systemd-resolved was split in a separate package.For the background: fakemachine is a program that spawns a QEMU VM that "mimics" the host. It does so mainly by mounting /usr from the host into the VM, plus a few other bits from here and there. For the network to work in the VM, it relies on systemd-networkd and systemd-resolved. These programs need to be present on the host, so that they are available in the VM.For more details, you can just run "fakemachine" in a shell, then "ps fax | grep qemu" in another shell: you will see how fakemachine uses qemu.So far, the package fakemachine Depends on systemd, and that was enough. Now with the split, and since we need systemd-resolved, we should make fakemachine Depend on systemd-resolved as well. However, and if I understand properly, installing systemd-resolved also *enables* it. A user installing the package is saying: I want name resolution to be done by systemd-resolved. Therefore it's not really suitable to put it in a Depend or a Recommend. fakemachine only needs the code from systemd-resolved (lib and binary, I suppose), but it definitely doesn't want to enable it: this decision belongs to the user.Does that make sense so far?
Not really, tbh. I think if you want to assemble a root/usr fs where you don't want do "disturb" the host system, I'd use a debootstrapped chroot but not the host fs. Say you want to install apache2 in your fakemachine managed VM, this would also start it on the host system, or not? I don't know why fakemachine does it this way and it's possible I'm missing something, but this approache feels "weird" to me, for the lack of a better word.
Michael
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
