Am Montag, den 23.11.2020, 15:38 +0100 schrieb Ansgar: > > I had installed systemd/247~rc2-2 from experimental, but kept udev at > 246.6-2 (version currently in unstable) as it wasn't automatically > upgraded. > > This combination made various things very unhappy (possibly due to > the > "bind" uevents mentioned in systemd's NEWS for 247?), in particular > dracut no longer booted. > > After upgrading udev to 247~rc2-2 and regenerating the initramfs the > system works fine again. > > udev and systemd should probably be kept in sync, but I'm not sure > how > best to achieve this given we don't want a versioned dependency from > systemd on udev, nor from udev on systemd.
As mentioned in another MR [1], the imho most "elegant" way would be an
artifical libsystemd0 dependency in udev.
Breaks and Conflicts have a tendency to cause weird results, so I'd
like to avoid them as much as possible. Unfortunately, this wouldn't
help in this particular case, as pre-247 version don't already have
such a libsystemd0 dependency.
That said, I kinda appreciate the ability to test combinations of
different systemd and udev versions.
> Maybe udev should have
> "Breaks: systemd (!= ${binary:Version})"? But I'm not sure if that
> might result in apt suggesting to remove udev instead.
Shouldn't this be the other way around, i.e. systemd having a
Breaks: udev (...) to force udev being upgraded along side.
Have you tested the other combination as well (udev 247 + systemd 246)?
v247 is a bit of a special case with the (incompatible) sticky udev
tags change. And maybe restricting it to that version is sufficient.
I guess I'd be fine if we had systemd with a Breaks: udev (<< 247~)
dependency.
I'm not sure, if we always need to enforce a lockstep upgrade.
Michael
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/systemd-team/systemd/-/merge_requests/103
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
