Craig Small <csm...@debian.org> writes: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 23:12, Ferenc Wágner <wf...@debian.org> wrote: > >> file. If you aren't comfortable with changing the unit files now, >> shortly before hard freeze, at least enabling support in the daemons >> would still be very useful and also very easy with the --with-systemd >> configure flag. That wouldn't change behavior, only enable taking >> advantage of the support via local configuration. If you're interested, >> I'm willing to open a merge request for easier review. The Salsa CI >> passed on my fork with the trivial change. > > Do you know if anything is linked to a systemd library (therefore the > dependencies change) is that is enabled?
Hi Craig, No, the necessary systemd code is included in snmplib/sd-daemon.c and appears in libnetsnmp.so, so the new binaries aren't linked against libsystemd. > Also, how confident are you writing unit files? I can write them but must > admit I don't fully understand some of the more exotic features such as > socket activation. My on-hands experience with socket activation is rather limited, but the concept is not new, inetd did the trick in a more limited way. The technology is widely used and there's even a short snmptrapd.socket upstream, albeit with a somewhat confusing comment about matching. Aside, I'd recommend using Type=exec everywhere instead of (the default) Type=simple for the sake of better error reporting. > The net-snmp upstream seems to think you only should do socket > activation for snmptrapd only, but I think you are only targeting that > one anyway. Yes. > A merge request on salsa seems the easiest way for me. If its not too big > an impact then it might be able to get it in before the freeze. I opened the simplest possible merge request based on the tree I did my testing on. It does not touch the unit files. I'm afraid whatever we do, we'll have to get a manual unblock from the release team, if they keep to their schedule (and they'll probably do so). -- Regards, Feri
