From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <20190725184901.24234-1-julian.klode@canonical.com> <20190730151223.jfxvd2qwaf5jdjsm@jak-t480s> <01707c6d-1fe3-f52e-47de-b8b13502fd0c@redhat.com> <20190731093920.pdu3zvxlo7i55gda@jak-t480s> <37de8264-a02e-a1b9-e297-c64ac35833fb@redhat.com> <20190731104134.7jsaxfaywjoutm7o@jak-t480s> From: Zdenek Kabelac Message-ID: <95c3fd73-b3ca-2382-7916-315c6d201423@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:09:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190731104134.7jsaxfaywjoutm7o@jak-t480s> Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] [PATCH] Detect systemd at run-time in 69-dm-lvm-metad.rules Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Julian Andres Klode Cc: LVM general discussion and development Dne 31. 07. 19 v 12:41 Julian Andres Klode napsal(a): > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:22:38PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: >> Dne 31. 07. 19 v 11:39 Julian Andres Klode napsal(a): >>>>> I don't see how this has anything to do with lvmetad. There is no lvmetad >>>>> anymore. >>>> >>>> The whole point of 'service' for 'pvscan' is to postone activation of DM >>>> devices outside of udev rule processing. >>>> >>>> So whatever is replacing systemd service in your's systemd-less system must >>>> provide similar functionality. >>>> >>>> There is currently no way to accept autoactivation capability within >>>> udev-rule processing. >>> >>> This has nothing to do with the part of the message you are replying too, and >>> is nonsense. The code to run pvscan directly is shipped, the change just moves >>> the decision whether to do that from compile-time to run-time. >> >> As long as 'pvscan' is executed with 'auto-activation' option - it can't be >> run from udev rule. Any proposal for this needs to first resolve, >> how to ensure udev will not try to kill running command in the middle of work. >> >> Until this is resolved - proposal of this can't be accepted upstream. > > Again: The code is already there. I'm just moving the decision what to pick from > compile-time to run-time. This is entirely orthogonal to whether the existing code > works well or not. So how about making 2 set of lvm2 packages for Debian. 1st. set build with dependency on systemd libraries. 2nd. is build without dependency on systemd libraries (thus installable for non-systemd users) lvm2 is not (ATM) build with runtime detection of systemd - it's either compiled to work with systemd (expect all the services to be there). 2nd. mode is compilation without systemd world (provided mostly for older distros). We do not test 'hybrid' - where lvm2 would be adapting to presence of systemd binaries (and we don't have capacity to test all these combinations) Regards Zdenek