On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 03:25:36PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Dear all, > > A few days ago, after a routine upgrade from testing, the power button on > my laptop ceased functioning. I was busy at the time, so I lived with > having to remember to type "sudo shutdown -h now" for a few days; yesterday, > I finally took the time to debug the issue. > > I started with "strace -p $(pidof acpid)$", and it took me almost an hour > to work it out. It turns out that apt had helpfully installed systemd, so > the powerbtn-acpi-support.sh script was detecting a running systemd-logind, > and (reasonably enough) going on strike.
That sounds like a bug to me. Either in systemd-logind (if that was supposed to have handled the power button event instead) or in acpid for not telling systemd-logind about the event. Hmm. I presume the intention is that logged in users are notified of the impending shut down. Simply refusing to honour the power button because of the presence of a process sounds like a nightmare to me. > > I was a little bit annoyed at that, so I filed bug 753357, which was > immediately closed by Michael Biebl with the following advice: > > > install systemd-shim For the record, and despite its name, systemd-shim is not systemd. If you read the description of the package, it becomes clearer: This package emulates the systemd function that are required to run the systemd helpers without using the init service In other words, systemd-shim is a shim (a thin interfacing layer). You place it between programs that expect to be able to use systemd and another init system (sysv usually). Consider it the reverse of systemd-sysv. > > I reopened the bug and explained that I have no desire to run systemd, > that the actual bug is about silently breaking my power button during > a routine upgrade, and that perhaps, just perhaps, the systemd maintainers > could be so kind as to avoid such issues in the future by adding suitable > "conflicts" to the systemd package. The bug was immediately closed again: > > > Certainly not. > > So I'm turning to this list for help: > > 1. Could some competent person tell me the right way to tell apt that it > should fail an upgrade rather than installing systemd? I guess > I could make a dummy package that conflicts with systemd, but I'm > sure there's a better way. > > 2. Could some kind soul explain to the systemd maintainers that gentle > persuasion, while not always the most efficient way to take over the > world, is more in line with point 4 of the Debian Social Contract > than alternative approaches such as bullying? > > Thanks a lot, > > -- Juliusz > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4wdyzvz.wl%...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
