On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 18:53 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > [ Adding debian-b...@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. > > > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
