On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:00 PM Robie Basak wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:34:25PM -0000, Andres Rodriguez wrote: > > FWIW, this is currently affecting customers who are running MAAS and > > require livepatch. > > It's been affecting users since January, no? This hasn’t been affecting users since January. This bug has been reported in November and only affects users running MAAS who someway or another installed systemd. In this particular case, on November a customer installed live patch on a system, hence the issue. Why the sudden urgency? > What difference will a week or two make? > > > Comments #11 and #12 above confirm that the patch is enough for the MAAS > > needs. Whichever way MAAS decides to check for systemd is up to MAAS and > > that is not a reason to block an SRU provided that it does not impact > > any other piece of software. That said, this patch does not does not > > introduce a regression to MAAS nor any other software. > > I think that's quite a brave claim to make. I'm sure "does not > introduce a regression" was a claim that might have been made in the > systemd SRU that regressed this too, and yet here we are. There is no supported way on Ubuntu Trusty (nor package in the archive) that will create a symlink of /sbin/init to systemd. This only happens By the systemd-sysv package which is only available in Xenial. So, since systemd is not supported as a init system in trusty and this would only happen if a user manually does this, then this doesn’t introduce any regressions in MAAS. So it is not a brave claim to make, it is a claim based on facts. > > > > Lastly, this patch is *only* for 1.9 as this code path is only available > > in Trusty, so upgrades to later Ubuntu releases will yield on using a > > newer version of MAAS that doesn't rely on this code path. > > If we did decide to SRU an emergency fix as a stopgap for MAAS' use > case, and it's for Trusty only, then why have a test at all? Can we just > return 'upstart' without a test? > > To be clear, I'm not demanding or even requesting anything specific > right now. I don't feel that a case for urgency has yet been made, given > the currently known regression timeline. In the meantime I think it's > worth understanding how we want to fix this properly, because requiring > multiple SRUs while we swing back and forth is bad for everyone, and > equally I don't want to see us locked into a suboptimal solution. > > If a case is accepted on the basis of urgency, or another SRU team > member disagrees with my assessment, I wouldn't want to block that. Feel > free to land what you think is appropriate. > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are a bug assignee. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1732703 > > Title: > MAAS does not detect properly if Ubuntu is using upstart/systemd > > To manage notifications about this bug go to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/maas/+bug/1732703/+subscriptions > > Launchpad-Notification-Type: bug > Launchpad-Bug: product=maas; status=Won't Fix; importance=Undecided; > assignee=None; > Launchpad-Bug: product=maas; productseries=1.9; milestone=1.9.6; status=In > Progress; importance=Critical;