Am 14.02.20 um 12:05 schrieb Andreas Henriksson: > Hello, > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:21:00PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: >> Am 13.02.20 um 14:03 schrieb Trent W. Buck: > [...] >>> 78root@DESKTOP-P00TKMM:/# udevadm trigger >>> Failed to scan devices: No such file or directory >> >> You should only get this error message if /sys is not mounted. >> I assume your chroot has neither /sys nor /proc mounted. >> >> >> systemd-udevd.service has >> ConditionPathIsReadWrite=/sys >> >> You could try to convince upstream to add a similar check to "udevadm >> trigger" >> > > Just wanted to chime in here and say that another way at looking at this > is to say that calling udevadm (and expecting it to exit with success) > when udev is not running could possibly be considered the bug. > > (Or in other words, it feels wrong to me to expect udevadm to exit with > success when it's failing to do the job it was asked to do.) > > From a simple codesearch.debian.net search I can see there are atleast > some packages which tries to only conditionally run udevadm, eg. via > 'pidof udevd && udevadm ...' and similar in their maintainer scripts.
The question is, whether such a check should be centralized or not. systemd-udev-trigger.service also has ConditionPathIsReadWrite=/sys We could update all maintainer scripts to wrap that udevadm call into a if [ -w /sys ]; then ... fi but it doesn't appear to me as the worst idea to move this check directly into udevadm and let "udevadm trigger" log a warning/notice and exit 0 if /sys is not writeable. Michael So
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
