(I guess the last email was the disagree email, and this one is the positive one, idk, I just missed those two points)
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:15:07PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:34:47AM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:34:23AM +0300, Aleksey Tulinov wrote: > Why even a warning? All the inhibit thing does is to prevent the admin from > doing something stupid (rebooting during an upgrade), and even that has > non-fatal results. Debian had no inhibit at all for decades and the sky > wasn't falling -- so it's a purely facultative option. If the system has > been booted using systemd and systemd is in an usable state (no changing > archs, etc) then inhibit will work -- otherwise, that particular handhold > won't be there. I agree. The thing is, we silently ignore failures to inhibit. This means it works fine on non-systemd systems - as it always did. Adding a warning on systems where it should work (stat(/run/systemd/system) == 0) would make it easy to discover regressions, but it's ultimately not super useful, as people won't read it anyway, especially if it's a background process doing this. > > > This is a best effort thing, there's nothing sensible we can do if it > > fails, except for logging a warning, and that does not help a lot. We > > don't want to issue an error obviously because you still want to be able > > to upgrade the system if your dbus is down or stuff. > > Just silently ignore a failure to inhibit. That's what we do right now. -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
