Debian Bug report logs - #668001
debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: shawn <shawnlandden@gmail.com>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:58:39 -0700

Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.39
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i

if you use debootstrap unstable foo --include=systemd-sysv
--exclude=sysvinit
the install fails

besides having this annoying for testing, esp with systemd-nspawn,
having this work will
be a prerequisite for having systemd be the default, or at least
installable in debian-installer

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers precise-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'precise-updates'), (500, 'precise-security'), (500,
'precise'), (100, 'precise-backports')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-20-generic (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages debootstrap depends on:
ii  wget  1.13.4-2ubuntu1

Versions of packages debootstrap recommends:
ii  gnupg           1.4.11-3ubuntu2
ii  ubuntu-keyring  2011.11.21

debootstrap suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>

To: shawn <shawnlandden@gmail.com>, 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:13:03 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

shawn wrote:
> Package: debootstrap
> Version: 1.0.39
> Severity: normal
> Tags: d-i
> 
> if you use debootstrap unstable foo --include=systemd-sysv
> --exclude=sysvinit
> the install fails

dpkg: regarding .../systemd-sysv_44-1_i386.deb containing systemd-sysv:
 systemd-sysv conflicts with sysvinit
  sysvinit (version 2.88dsf-22.1) is present and installed.
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/systemd-sysv_44-1_i386.deb (--unpack):
 conflicting packages - not installing systemd-sysv

The problem is that debootstrap handles --exclude before adding required
priority packages to its list, so sysvinit is added back then.

#557322 is a prior bug report about this, and has a patch
that at least handles excluding it from the required priority packages,
although it may still be added back by dependency resolution.

> besides having this annoying for testing, esp with systemd-nspawn,
> having this work will
> be a prerequisite for having systemd be the default, or at least
> installable in debian-installer

I don't think that's necessarily true, there are many ways d-i could
handle getting systemd installed, and if it were made the default, --exclude
would not be needed at all.
 
-- 
see shy jo

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andras Korn <korn-debbugs@elan.rulez.org>

To: 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Also can't install sysvinit-core instead of systemd, despite patch

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 23:14:55 +0200

Hi,

I applied the patch from #557322 (noting that $exclude should apparently be
$EXCLUDE now) but debootstrap still installs systemd even though nothing
depends on it and I'm excluding it explicitly.

My command line is:

debootstrap --arch=amd64 --components=main,contrib,non-free \
	--include=zsh,less,locales,sysvinit-core \
	--exclude=systemd,systemd-sysv sid \
	/t http://http.debian.net/debian \
	/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/sid

I added set -x to the debootstrap script to see what it set $required to,
and it doesn't include systemd now:

+ required=base-files base-passwd bash bsdutils coreutils dash debconf debconf-i18n debianutils diffutils dpkg e2fslibs e2fsprogs findutils gcc-4.7-base gcc-4.8-base gcc-4.9-base grep gzip hostname init initscripts libacl1 libattr1 libblkid1 libc-bin libc6 libcomerr2 libgcc1 liblocale-gettext-perl liblzma5 libmount1 libncurses5 libpam-modules libpam-modules-bin libpam-runtime libpam0g libpcre3 libselinux1 libsepol1 libss2 libtext-charwidth-perl libtext-iconv-perl libtext-wrapi18n-perl libtinfo5 libuuid1 login lsb-base mawk mount multiarch-support ncurses-base ncurses-bin passwd perl-base sed sensible-utils startpar sysv-rc sysvinit-utils tar tzdata util-linux zlib1g 

$base doesn't contain it either:

+ base=adduser apt apt-utils bsdmainutils cpio cron debian-archive-keyring dmidecode gnupg gpgv groff-base ifupdown init-system-helpers iproute2 iptables iputils-ping isc-dhcp-client isc-dhcp-common kmod less libapt-inst1.5 libapt-pkg4.12 libboost-iostreams1.54.0 libboost-iostreams1.55.0 libbz2-1.0 libgdbm3 libkmod2 libncursesw5 libnewt0.52 libpipeline1 libpopt0 libprocps3 libreadline6 libsigc++-2.0-0c2a libslang2 libssl1.0.0 libstdc++6 libudev1 libusb-0.1-4 libxtables10 locales logrotate man-db manpages nano net-tools netbase netcat-traditional nfacct procps readline-common rsyslog sysvinit-core tasksel tasksel-data traceroute udev vim-common vim-tiny wget whiptail zsh

But still it creeps in somehow, and further output doesn't tell me how.
These are the occurrences of systemd in the debootstrap log:

Selecting previously unselected package init.
dpkg: regarding .../archives/init_1.21_amd64.deb containing init, pre-dependency problem:
 init pre-depends on systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart
  systemd-sysv is not installed.
  sysvinit-core is not installed.
  upstart is not installed.

Not a problem, we're installing sysvinit-core, right? Wrong:

Selecting previously unselected package systemd.
dpkg: regarding .../systemd_215-5+b1_amd64.deb containing systemd, pre-dependency problem:
 systemd pre-depends on libgcrypt20 (>= 1.6.1)
  libgcrypt20:amd64 is unpacked, but has never been configured.

So how does this happen? My guess is the dependency resolver gets confused by the dependencies of init:

Package: init
Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart

Specifically, this bit:

        if ($in and (/^Depends: (.*)$/ or /^Pre-Depends: (.*)$/)) {
                for $d (split /\s*,\s*/, $1) {
                        $d =~ s/\s*[|].*$//;
                        $d =~ s/\s*[(].*[)]\s*//;
                        push @d, $d;
                }
        }

I don't read perl very well, but it seems to me "$d =~ s/\s*[|].*$//;"
discards everything from the first pipe character to the end of the line;
i.e. as far as debootstrap is concerned, init (pre-)depends on systemd-sysv
only.

A possible way of fixing this would be to remove excluded packages from
depends and pre-depends lines before processing the lines.

Andras

-- 
                      CONgress (n) - Opposite of PROgress

Message #20 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org>

To: 668001@bugs.debian.org, 668001-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:11:57 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi,

I made a patch to see each Depends:/Pre-Depends: and
respect exclude parameter.

If init Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart,
exclude=<none> gets systemd-sysv.
exclude=systemd-sysv gets sysvinit-core.
exclude=systemd-sysv,sysvinit-core gets upstart.

(exclude=systemd-sysv,sysvinit-core,upstart gets nothing, but
systemd-sysv will be installed later by apt-get.)

Thanks,
- -- 
Kenshi Muto
kmuto@debian.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.9 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
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=MsM/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[668001.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #28 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

To: Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org>, 668001@bugs.debian.org

Cc: shawn <shawnlandden@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 05:57:30 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org> (2014-10-17):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I made a patch to see each Depends:/Pre-Depends: and
> respect exclude parameter.
> 
> If init Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart,
> exclude=<none> gets systemd-sysv.
> exclude=systemd-sysv gets sysvinit-core.
> exclude=systemd-sysv,sysvinit-core gets upstart.
> 
> (exclude=systemd-sysv,sysvinit-core,upstart gets nothing, but
> systemd-sysv will be installed later by apt-get.)

Thanks for the patch but…

I'm really uncomfortable adding that kind of patch this late in the
release cycle, especially since the “I don't want systemd” “problem”
is trivially solved with a late_command.

Mraw,
KiBi.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #33 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org>

To: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

Cc: 668001@bugs.debian.org, shawn <shawnlandden@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:09:19 +0900

At Fri, 17 Oct 2014 05:57:30 +0200,
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org> (2014-10-17):
> Thanks for the patch but…
> 
> I'm really uncomfortable adding that kind of patch this late in the
> release cycle, especially since the “I don't want systemd” “problem”
> is trivially solved with a late_command.

Yes, I understand current situation of release cycle.
It would be better we considered this issue some month ago.

I myself don't matter about systemd, but
I heared there was a bootup problem when one created a root
system for container (such as LXC) with using debootstrap.
(though I'm not sure about this.)

Thanks,
-- 
Kenshi Muto
kmuto@debian.org

Message #40 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Takatsugu Nokubi <nokubi@gmail.com>

To: "To=" <20141017040919.43F2749203F7@mail.topstudio.co.jp>, 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:21:13 +0900

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:09:19 +0900 Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org> wrote:
> At Fri, 17 Oct 2014 05:57:30 +0200,
> I myself don't matter about systemd, but
> I heared there was a bootup problem when one created a root
> system for container (such as LXC) with using debootstrap.
> (though I'm not sure about this.)

I tried jessie lxc with the following step:
http://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/lxc-setup-on-debian-jessie/

It works fine and lxc container had no systemd, sysvinit.

Message #45 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>

To: 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 21:34:19 -0400

So what kind of testing would help to get this included in Jessie? Can I 
offer assistance?

It strikes me that an awful lot of the screaming about systemd would die 
down a LOT if there were a definitive way to install a system with 
systemvinit-core rather than systemd -- as opposed to having to fix 
things after the fact (especially since the instructions floating around 
are conflicting, and there seem to be some cases of dependency hell - 
where uninstalling systemd leads to mass removals of other packages).

It sure would be nice if we could simply pre-seed base-installer with a 
couple of well-defined include and exclude statements, and end up with a 
systemd-free system.

So.. what can I do to help (given that I'm a sys admin, not a c coder).

Miles Fidelman

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:09:19 +0900 Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org> wrote:
> At Fri, 17 Oct 2014 05:57:30 +0200,
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org> (2014-10-17):
> > Thanks for the patch but$B!D(B
> >
> > I'm really uncomfortable adding that kind of patch this late in the
> > release cycle, especially since the $B!H(BI don't want 
systemd$B!I(B $B!H(Bproblem$B!I(B
> > is trivially solved with a late_command.
>
> Yes, I understand current situation of release cycle.
> It would be better we considered this issue some month ago.
>
> I myself don't matter about systemd, but
> I heared there was a bootup problem when one created a root
> system for container (such as LXC) with using debootstrap.
> (though I'm not sure about this.)
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Kenshi Muto
> kmuto@debian.org
>
>

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

Message #50 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@gmail.com>

To: 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:59:08 -0400

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 05:57:30 +0200 Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org> (2014-10-17):
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I made a patch to see each Depends:/Pre-Depends: and
> > respect exclude parameter.
> >
> > If init Pre-Depends: systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart,
> > exclude=<none> gets systemd-sysv.
> > exclude=systemd-sysv gets sysvinit-core.
> > exclude=systemd-sysv,sysvinit-core gets upstart.
> >
> > (exclude=systemd-sysv,sysvinit-core,upstart gets nothing, but
> > systemd-sysv will be installed later by apt-get.)
>
> Thanks for the patch but…
>
> I'm really uncomfortable adding that kind of patch this late in the
> release cycle, especially since the “I don't want systemd” “problem”
> is trivially solved with a late_command.
>
> Mraw,
> KiBi.

Cyril, Kenshi's debootstrap patch has worked for me. I was able to build 
a nosystemd debootstrap base and then a full custom Debian distro image. 
I had some problems with talking to X, but still managed to make it work.

You have mentioned that there is a trivial late_command workaround for 
systemd. Could you please point to the how-to?

Thanks, Woody

Message #55 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>

To: 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: how to build installer w/ patched debootstrap

Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 19:44:31 -0500

Kenshi, or whomever,

Perhaps a naive question, but... how would I actually apply and use the 
patch?  It's not like patching a single source file and recompiling - I 
assume I also have to build a custom copy of the installer that makes 
use of the patched debootstrap.

Specifically, for our situation, how to build an installer image that 
can PXEBOOT and then build a system on bare iron (server, no CD/DVD slot).

Thanks!

Miles Fidelman



-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

Message #60 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

To: Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@gmail.com>, 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 21:41:55 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@gmail.com> (2014-10-27):
> You have mentioned that there is a trivial late_command workaround
> for systemd. Could you please point to the how-to?

Well, quite obviously:

    preseed/late_command="in-target apt-get install -y sysvinit-core"

I would somewhat expect people resisting systemd so much to figure that
out by themselves.

Mraw,
KiBi.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #65 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:22:44 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

August 8th, Debian began supporting¹ choice among several init systems.
August 21st, Debian changed² default init.

To me, flexibility is an important feature of Debian.  I am excited that 
Debian extends its flexibility to cover several init systems.

Others agree, apparently³: Among those testing our system while this new 
flexibility is in place, ~20% use a non-default init system.

For fresh installs, picking a non-default init requires a workaround: 
First install default init system, then replace with your own choice.  
Remember to also check for and purge any cruft pulled in by that detour.

October 17th a fix was proposed at <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#20>.

@Testers of Debian: Please test debootstrap with that patch applied and 
report your experiences, good and bad, to <668001@bugs.debian.org>.

@Debian-installer team: Please reconsider applying that patch.  If not 
targeted Jessie then in another suite: Any degree of adoption eases 
ability to test, which in turn eases ability to adopt further.


Kind regards,

 - Jonas

¹ Package "sysvinit" stopped being flagged as essential, causing package 
managers to no longer treat alternative choices as breach of Policy.  
That changes entered unstable 2014-08-06 and testing 2014-08-12.

² Package "init" switched to favor "systemd-sysv" over "sysvinit-core". 
That changes entered unstable 2014-08-21 and testing 2014-08-26.

³ According to 
<https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=sysvinit-core+systemd-sysv&from_date=2014-07-24&hlght_date=2014-08-26>

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #70 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

To: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>, 668001@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:31:33 +0100

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-25):
> August 8th, Debian began supporting¹ choice among several init systems.
> August 21st, Debian changed² default init.
> 
> To me, flexibility is an important feature of Debian.  I am excited that 
> Debian extends its flexibility to cover several init systems.
> 
> Others agree, apparently³: Among those testing our system while this new 
> flexibility is in place, ~20% use a non-default init system.
> 
> For fresh installs, picking a non-default init requires a workaround: 
> First install default init system, then replace with your own choice.  
> Remember to also check for and purge any cruft pulled in by that detour.
> 
> October 17th a fix was proposed at <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#20>.
> 
> @Testers of Debian: Please test debootstrap with that patch applied and 
> report your experiences, good and bad, to <668001@bugs.debian.org>.
> 
> @Debian-installer team: Please reconsider applying that patch.  If not 
> targeted Jessie then in another suite: Any degree of adoption eases 
> ability to test, which in turn eases ability to adopt further.

I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for
tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing lists,
etc. is going to change anything here.

I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init
system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap is
not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving area.


KiBi.

Message #75 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

To: 668001@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:18:08 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Cyril,

Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-25):
>> August 8th, Debian began supporting¹ choice among several init 
>> systems. August 21st, Debian changed² default init.
>>
>> To me, flexibility is an important feature of Debian.  I am excited 
>> that Debian extends its flexibility to cover several init systems.
>>
>> Others agree, apparently³: Among those testing our system while this 
>> new flexibility is in place, ~20% use a non-default init system.
>>
>> For fresh installs, picking a non-default init requires a workaround: 
>> First install default init system, then replace with your own choice.  
>> Remember to also check for and purge any cruft pulled in by that 
>> detour.
>>
>> October 17th a fix was proposed at 
>> <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#20>.
>>
>> @Testers of Debian: Please test debootstrap with that patch applied 
>> and report your experiences, good and bad, to 
>> <668001@bugs.debian.org>.
>>
>> @Debian-installer team: Please reconsider applying that patch.  If 
>> not targeted Jessie then in another suite: Any degree of adoption 
>> eases ability to test, which in turn eases ability to adopt further.
>
> I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for 
> tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing lists, 
> etc. is going to change anything here.

You don't follow how raising exposure to a bugreport have the potential 
to boost contributions getting that bug resolved?


> I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init 
> system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap 
> is not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving area.

Thanks for clarifying.  I guess now (reading again a couple times very 
slowly) that you are referring to "this late in the release cycle" in 
<https://bugs.debian.org/668001#28>.

I am sorry that until now I read that as simply "go away, too late!"

Quite possibly I was distracted by the mud you threw right after that in 
same sentence.  I find no pleasure digesting mud so only read that 
sentence quickly at first.

Just to be clear: Are you saying that the patch is perfect and just - as 
already more than adequately pointed out by you (except evidently still 
so for think-headed folks like me) - will not under any possible 
circumstances be touched _before_ Jessie is released, but _after_ the 
release will be applied as-is with no need for further testing nor 
discussion from your peer Debian developers or anyone else?

If so, then why not release it now for experimental?  If because you are 
too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing so as 
an NMU?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #80 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

To: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

Cc: 668001@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:50:48 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-25):
> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33)
> > I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for
> > tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing
> > lists, etc. is going to change anything here.
> 
> You don't follow how raising exposure to a bugreport have the
> potential to boost contributions getting that bug resolved?

Since the decision was made that no, it won't be touched for jessie, no,
I frankly do not follow.

> > I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init 
> > system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap 
> > is not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving area.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.  I guess now (reading again a couple times very 
> slowly) that you are referring to "this late in the release cycle" in 
> <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#28>.
> 
> I am sorry that until now I read that as simply "go away, too late!"

I'm no native English speaker/writer, so I try to stick to non
convoluted wordings, but I guess I can easily fail at doing so.

> Quite possibly I was distracted by the mud you threw right after that
> in same sentence.  I find no pleasure digesting mud so only read that
> sentence quickly at first.

I'm sorry you see mud throwing in my considering this a non-problem, I
really don't follow you there either.

> Just to be clear: Are you saying that the patch is perfect and just -
> as already more than adequately pointed out by you (except evidently
> still so for think-headed folks like me) - will not under any possible
> circumstances be touched _before_ Jessie is released, but _after_ the
> release will be applied as-is with no need for further testing nor
> discussion from your peer Debian developers or anyone else?

No, I didn't write that either. Please stop making up stuff. It won't be
considered for jessie, that's all.

> If so, then why not release it now for experimental?  If because you
> are too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing
> so as an NMU?

To be crystal clear: no, this patch needs to be considered, reviewed,
whatever, and not randomly uploaded to experimental. Feel free to ping
this bug report once jessie is released.


KiBi.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #85 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

To: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

Cc: 668001@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:18:47 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 19:50:48)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-25):
>> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33)
>>> I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for 
>>> tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing 
>>> lists, etc. is going to change anything here.
>> 
>> You don't follow how raising exposure to a bugreport have the 
>> potential to boost contributions getting that bug resolved?
>
> Since the decision was made that no, it won't be touched for jessie, 
> no, I frankly do not follow.

Why do you talk about Jessie?  I do not talk about Jessie, I talk about 
a bug in Debian and how we can fix it.

I believe that the only time I mentioned "Jessie" in this thread (till 
now) was in a sentence where I explicitly propose to *not* target that 
suite if needed to move forward with this bug.

Do you understand my question now?


>>> I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init 
>>> system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap 
>>> is not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving 
>>> area.
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying.  I guess [...] that you are referring to "this 
>> late in the release cycle" in <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#28>.
[mutual apologies snipped]
>> Quite possibly I was distracted by the mud you threw right after that 
>> in same sentence.  I find no pleasure digesting mud so only read that 
>> sentence quickly at first.
> 
> I'm sorry you see mud throwing in my considering this a non-problem, I 
> really don't follow you there either.

What I call throwing mud is your introducing dislikes of systemd when 
that's not what the bug is about.

(Heck, the title of the bug is even the opposite - stemming from the era 
past 4 months ago when systemd was not the default).

Back to my question: Did I guess correctly that your "this late in the 
release cycle" in <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#28> is what you mean 
by "already mentioned"?

(Again, let me emphasize that I am talking about a bug, not a release 
and no specific init system).


>> Just to be clear: Are you saying that the patch is perfect and just - 
>> as already more than adequately pointed out by you (except evidently 
>> still so for think-headed folks like me) - will not under any 
>> possible circumstances be touched _before_ Jessie is released, but 
>> _after_ the release will be applied as-is with no need for further 
>> testing nor discussion from your peer Debian developers or anyone 
>> else?
>
> No, I didn't write that either. Please stop making up stuff. It won't 
> be considered for jessie, that's all.

"Either"?!?

So I guessed wrong further up, or what?  Sorry if that's the case - it 
was unintentional.  Perhaps it helps if you spell out to me what you are 
talking about, instead of only making remarks that $stuff has already 
been discussed $enough.  Seems _your_ $stuff is init-specific and _your_ 
$enough is suite-specific, and you then impose that on my $stuff and 
$enough which are different ones.  Seems you are reading between the 
lines of what I wrote and then get upset when I do the same.

You mention Jessie again - that's besides the point!


>> If so, then why not release it now for experimental?  If because you 
>> are too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing 
>> so as an NMU?
>
> To be crystal clear: no, this patch needs to be considered, reviewed, 
> whatever, and not randomly uploaded to experimental. Feel free to ping 
> this bug report once jessie is released.

You have made it quite clear that you do not believe putting more 
attention to this bug is "going to change anything here."  How then do 
_you_ propose to get it "considered, reviewed, whatever"?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #90 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

To: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

Cc: 668001@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:31:18 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-26):
> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 19:50:48)
> > Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> (2014-11-25):
> >> Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-25 18:31:33)
> >>> I'm not sure why people seem to believe that broadcasting a call for 
> >>> tests through their blog, Planet Debian, various Debian mailing 
> >>> lists, etc. is going to change anything here.
> >> 
> >> You don't follow how raising exposure to a bugreport have the 
> >> potential to boost contributions getting that bug resolved?
> >
> > Since the decision was made that no, it won't be touched for jessie, 
> > no, I frankly do not follow.
> 
> Why do you talk about Jessie?  I do not talk about Jessie, I talk about 
> a bug in Debian and how we can fix it.
> 
> I believe that the only time I mentioned "Jessie" in this thread (till 
> now) was in a sentence where I explicitly propose to *not* target that 
> suite if needed to move forward with this bug.

Because jessie is what matters now, then we can look at init-less
debootstrap, and figure out whether this bug makes sense at all, and if
it needs fixing. The only occurrence (I'm aware of) is in init context
(forced sysvinit then forced systemd).

> Do you understand my question now?

No.

> >>> I've already mentioned that having debootstrap stop pulling an init 
> >>> system might make sense at some point. In the meanwhile, debootstrap 
> >>> is not going to receive any patching in the dependency resolving 
> >>> area.
> >>
> >> Thanks for clarifying.  I guess [...] that you are referring to "this 
> >> late in the release cycle" in <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#28>.
> [mutual apologies snipped]
> >> Quite possibly I was distracted by the mud you threw right after that 
> >> in same sentence.  I find no pleasure digesting mud so only read that 
> >> sentence quickly at first.
> > 
> > I'm sorry you see mud throwing in my considering this a non-problem, I 
> > really don't follow you there either.
> 
> What I call throwing mud is your introducing dislikes of systemd when 
> that's not what the bug is about.

That's very much not true, see above.

> (Heck, the title of the bug is even the opposite - stemming from the era 
> past 4 months ago when systemd was not the default).

Addressed above as well.

> Back to my question: Did I guess correctly that your "this late in the 
> release cycle" in <https://bugs.debian.org/668001#28> is what you mean 
> by "already mentioned"?
> 
> (Again, let me emphasize that I am talking about a bug, not a release 
> and no specific init system).

I do mean that, and mails to debian-boot@, and mails to debian-ctte@,
and mails to debian-devel@, and mails to debian-private@. Pick your
favourite.

> >> Just to be clear: Are you saying that the patch is perfect and just - 
> >> as already more than adequately pointed out by you (except evidently 
> >> still so for think-headed folks like me) - will not under any 
> >> possible circumstances be touched _before_ Jessie is released, but 
> >> _after_ the release will be applied as-is with no need for further 
> >> testing nor discussion from your peer Debian developers or anyone 
> >> else?
> >
> > No, I didn't write that either. Please stop making up stuff. It won't 
> > be considered for jessie, that's all.
> 
> "Either"?!?
> 
> So I guessed wrong further up, or what?  Sorry if that's the case - it 
> was unintentional.  Perhaps it helps if you spell out to me what you are 
> talking about, instead of only making remarks that $stuff has already 
> been discussed $enough.  Seems _your_ $stuff is init-specific and _your_ 
> $enough is suite-specific, and you then impose that on my $stuff and 
> $enough which are different ones.  Seems you are reading between the 
> lines of what I wrote and then get upset when I do the same.

I've rephrased it (again) in my first paragraph.

> You mention Jessie again - that's besides the point!

No, that's very relevant, again, see above.

> >> If so, then why not release it now for experimental?  If because you 
> >> are too busy releasing Debian, would you perhaps be ok with me doing 
> >> so as an NMU?
> >
> > To be crystal clear: no, this patch needs to be considered, reviewed, 
> > whatever, and not randomly uploaded to experimental. Feel free to ping 
> > this bug report once jessie is released.
> 
> You have made it quite clear that you do not believe putting more 
> attention to this bug is "going to change anything here."  How then do 
> _you_ propose to get it "considered, reviewed, whatever"?

All mentioned in the first paragraph.


I'll probably stop replying here since I feel like I'm repeating myself
over and over and over and over again.


Bottom lines:
 - debootstrap in jessie is not going to get changed WRT this bug.
 - and since you're not specifically interested in jessie, please don't
   touch debootstrap in unstable or experimental either; instead, let
   people figure out what to do with it after the jessie release.


KiBi.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #95 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

To: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

Cc: 668001@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 01:30:13 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-11-26 00:31:18)
> I'll probably stop replying here since I feel like I'm repeating 
> myself over and over and over and over again.

You didn't repeat youself.  Thanks for spelling out your opinions to me.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #100 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Trek <trek00@inbox.ru>

To: 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:21:54 +0100

the patch works perfectly, I hope it will be included in jessie+1

you can roughly apply the patch on debootstrap 1.0.66 with:

patch -r- /usr/sbin/debootstrap 668001.patch
patch -r- /usr/share/debootstrap/functions 668001.patch

and press enter to any question

after patching I can install a new system using sysvinit-core with:

debootstrap --exclude=systemd,systemd-sysv /mnt
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/

I must exclude not only systemd-sysv but also systemd, because it does
not remove some configuration file on purge and will leave dirty the
just installed system, but I will submit another bug report for that

ciao

P.S.: the preseed/late_command does not apply to debootstrap and will
leave the system dirty until the systemd bug is not resolved

Message #105 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@aixigo.de>

To: 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: please help test proposed patch for bug#668001

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:30:19 +0100

If would be nice if you could upload a patched version to experimental.

Thanx in advance. Keep on your good work
Harri

Message #110 received at 668001@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jacob Luna Lundberg <jacob@gnifty.net>

To: 668001@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 10:25:45 -0700

Hello,

I think this bug has a lot of dev and ops misunderstanding.  It's not 
surprising dev folks think the postinstall hack is good enough, but from 
an ops perspective it very much is not.  Rather than trying to argue 
that point, let's just move ahead with solving the core problem 
(debootstrap not honoring excludes).

I can confirm from moderately extensive testing the patch provided in 
this bug resolves the problem of excludes not working and I have not 
seen any undesired behavior resulting from this.  Could we get this 
uploaded at least to experimental, if not to unstable now that the 
jessie release has been cut?  Are the developers merely too busy and 
would they welcome an NMU for this?

Also, for the other ops folks out there, I have seen quite a bit of 
back-and-forth discussion about what you can and can't do without 
patching debootstrap.  Here's a quick run-down of the current status 
(i.e. what we're stuck with for jessie):

* You cannot avoid systemd getting installed when using the debootstrap 
shipped with jessie.  Full stop.  This impacts both the bare metal 
installer and debootstrap used for things like LXC containers.  You can 
use debootstrap to install a package which conflicts with systemd in the 
second phase, but this will merely remove systemd, not purge it.  It 
also will not uninstall systemd's dependencies.

* You can provide your own patched version of debootstrap for LXC 
container hosts but unless you are willing to maintain your own version 
of the installer images as well, you cannot do anything about the bare 
metal installs.  (Remember, the installer gets rebuilt from time to time 
to accommodate kernel upgrades and you may be forced to do the same to 
keep your preseeds working...)

* If you are using patched debootstrap, installing sysvinit instead of 
systemd looks like this:

  * bare metal:

Preseed with something like the following:

# Individual base packages to exclude
d-i base-installer/excludes string systemd systemd-sysv
# Additional base packages to include
d-i base-installer/includes string sysvinit-core

  * LXC container:

Adjust the container template so it looks something like this:

PACKAGES_EXCLUDE="systemd,systemd-sysv"
PACKAGES_INCLUDE="...,sysvinit-core"

echo "Downloading debian minimal ..."
debootstrap --verbose --variant=minbase --arch="${ARCH}" \
        --exclude "${PACKAGES_EXCLUDE}" --include "${PACKAGES_INCLUDE}" \
        ${RELEASE} "${CACHE}/partial-${RELEASE}-${ARCH}" "http://${BITBUCKET}/debian"

(Ours is pretty heavily customized; sorry the variable names are all 
different than they are in the script provided by Debian...)

* If you aren't using patched debootstrap, you probably want something 
like the following in your post-install (f.e. in a script executed as an 
installer late command in-target):

# We are running non-interactive
export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive
export DEBIAN_PRIORITY=critical

# Clean up if the installer used a defective debootstrap which installed systemd
dpkg -l | egrep -q '^.[^n]. (systemd|systemd-sysv) ' && {
        echo -e "Defective installer debootstrap; systemd was installed at some point...\n"

        # In the worst case, systemd may be the only thing installed
        apt-get -mqy install sysvinit-core

        # The installer may have left config files around
        dpkg -P systemd systemd-sysv

        # Remove non-Important systemd dependencies unless depended by another package
        for PKG in acl dbus libcap2-bin libcryptsetup4 libpam-systemd lvm2 systemd-shim systemd-ui; do
                dpkg -P ${PKG} || true
        done

        # Remove files which systemd messily leaves around the filesystem
        rm -vrf /etc/dbus-1 /etc/pam.d/systemd-user /etc/systemd/*.conf

        echo
}

(Of course, one of the reasons ops folks don't like having to do this is 
Debian might change the systemd deps and then we have to go change the 
post-install script to accommodate...)

Thanks,
-Jacob

-- 

An original IBM 4.77MHz PC reports 0.7 bogomips running Linux 8086, but
can still run a webserver!

 -Alan Cox, lkml post, 21 Mar 2003

Message #115 received at 668001-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>

To: Jacob Luna Lundberg <jacob@gnifty.net>, 668001-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#668001: debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit

Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 20:25:44 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Jacob Luna Lundberg <jacob@gnifty.net> (2015-05-09):
> I think this bug has a lot of dev and ops misunderstanding.  It's not
> surprising dev folks think the postinstall hack is good enough, but
> from an ops perspective it very much is not.  Rather than trying to
> argue that point, let's just move ahead with solving the core problem
> (debootstrap not honoring excludes).

No, the problem is that too many things are getting pulled, even when it
doesn't make much sense (e.g. an init system inside a chroot). The list
of extraneous packages it being assembled here:
  https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/05/msg00156.html

> I can confirm from moderately extensive testing the patch provided in
> this bug resolves the problem of excludes not working and I have not
> seen any undesired behavior resulting from this.  Could we get this
> uploaded at least to experimental, if not to unstable now that the
> jessie release has been cut?  Are the developers merely too busy and
> would they welcome an NMU for this?

Developers are busy figuring out which set of packages is reasonable to
install by default. Adjusting this will make this “problem” moot.

Closing this “debootstrap: cant install systemd instead of sysvinit”
bug report as it doesn't make sense to keep it open. Its title is
misleading, we're not going to touch jessie for that, and stretch is
being fixed the correct way.

Mraw,
KiBi.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.