On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:12:00 -0700 Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> wrote: > >>>>> "Sean" == Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > > Sean> Hello, > Sean> On Wed 22 Feb 2023 at 09:55AM +01, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > >> Unless I am missing something, having dh_installsystemd look at > >> the service files in /usr/lib is the only viable solution for > >> bullseye -> bookworm. We could fix individual packages that > >> didn't include those files in bullseye, but for all the others we > >> are unable to move the files from /usr/lib to /lib. > > Sean> You're saying we can't move them in that case because the TC > Sean> resolution says no moving /usr/lib->/lib ? Or some other > Sean> reason? I thought we only said that files couldn't move in > Sean> the other direction. > > Well, there is the underlying technical issue that made the TC > resolution reasonable. > Moving paths between aliased locations plus replaces will always > produce behavior that is predictable and potentially bad with the > current dpkg. > It's independent on whether it's /usr/lib or /lib on source or > destination. > > I agree with the analysis and believe that having dh_installsystemd look > in /usr/lib/systemd is the option least likely to create breakage.
If those files have always been shipped in /usr then yes, I agree we should leave them there. We might have a problem if they were in /lib in bullseye though, but am I correct in understanding that this is not the case for any of the highlighted packages? -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
