Re: wireguard dkms systemd

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1567 bytes --]

On Mon 2018-11-05 12:27:44 +0100, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
>>  * i'm leery of the "systemctl daemon-reload" approach in particular, as
>>    mentioned above.  if lots of packages did that in their postinst
>>    they'd be interacting weirdly with each other during a multi-package
>>    upgrade.
>
> I don't see how reloading systemd units too often can cause any kind of
> interference, and in fact debhelper already does this for both the
> 'restart in postinst' (default in compat 10+) and the 'stop in prerm,
> start in postinst' (default in compat <= 9) mode - unconditionally, on
> every upgrade of a package that ships an automatically (re)started unit.
>
> random data point: on this system with 1606 maintscripts in place, 93
> have some variant of systemctl daemon-reload in them (and 12 even have
> multiple calls in one maintscript). on a server running Stretch, the
> ratio is 72/597.

thanks for this analysis, Fabian.  I think you've convinced me that
while it might be a problem, it's at least a much larger problem that we
don't need to solve or avoid in the wireguard packaging specifically :)

> FWIW, I'd like to see some variant of transparent reloading integrated
> into the Debian packages (even if disabled by default).

if you want to propose a postinst that addresses the two other concerns
(i.e. using a debconf question, and not prompting the local admin if the
local package was able to successfuly handle the reload), i'd happily
review it, and include it if it looks good.

all the best,

       --dkg

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 148 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
WireGuard@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard