[oe] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] systemd: upgrade to 239

[nick83ola]

Hi Chen,

regarding this issue:

>On 07/26/2018 07:05 AM, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Chen Qi <Qi.Chen at windriver.com> wrote:
>>> Upgrade systemd to 239.
>>>
>>> 3. update-alternatives changes
>>>    The utilities like shutdown, poweroff, etc. are now created as symlinks
>>>    at do_install. So there's no need to use update-alternatives mechanism
>>>    anymore to create the symlinks now. In addtion, I don't think we now
>>>    support multiple init systems at one running system, so there's really
>>>    no need to use update-alternatives mechanism here.
>> I noticed that reboot stopped working locally as I had busybox
>> installed together with systemd, and the busybox version ended up
>> being used as it was provided via update-alternatives.
>>
>> Looking for possible similar broken links, I found that
>> update-alternatives ended up pointing reboot, halt and poweroff to the
>> busybox binary instead of systemctl. Should we revert the changes and
>> bring back update-alternatives for them?
>>
>> Thanks,
>
>I think the correct direction to fix this problem is to make busybox
>only provide init utilities (reboot, halt, etc) when init manager is set
>to busybox.
>
>We current have in busybox recipe's SRC_URI:
>            ${@["",
>"file://init.cfg"][(d.getVar('VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager') ==
>'busybox')]} \
>
>I think the init utilities should be moved to init.cfg.
>
>Please check my logic to see if you can agree with it.
>We have two facts here.
>1. Init utilities (reboot, halt, etc.) are tightly bond to the specific
>implementation of PID 1.
>2. We only allow one PID 1 in our image. (VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager).
>So we can conclude from the above two facts that it does not make much
>sense to have multiple providers of init utilities while we only allow
>one PID 1 provider on image.
>
>After all, we are using update-*alternatives*, things that this
>mechanism manages are supposed to generally serve as alternatives to
>each other.
>
>Best Regards,
>Chen Qi

Can you elaborate more what we need to patch?

because this update break all the systemd based systems...

Also there's a following patch that add back an alternative for busybox

8421aede4fdd5132eb953a59099670f9ab1f7f01  systemd: add ALTERNATIVE for reboot

What's the more correct way to do fix this?

Best Regards

Nicola Lunghi