Remaining 214 patches from Jono

[Uoti Urpala]

Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> * e366cac Rework the semantics of restart job deadlock avoidance during early boot and shutdown.
> 
> The main patch here was sent to the systemd list, from the discussion it
> seems upstream doesn't like that approach. I don't think this is an area
> where we should diverge, so probably should be dropped 

The current discussion looks like upstream is somewhat clueless about
this issue; IMO the patch shouldn't be permanently dropped with a
"upstream disagrees" resolution while upstream's last posted rationale
was not even factually correct (the last post was wrong at least about
what the current behavior actually is and about the backwards
compatibility situation). It should be discussed further until any
decisions are based on correct facts. I don't know how long Lennart's
mail queue is and whether he intends to reply to the existing discussion
or if it should be brought up again.

Note that this change *replaces* a previous Debian patch. The previous
patch is a semantically incorrect hack and certainly will not be
accepted upstream. Thus any "divergence from upstream" argument is IMO
wrong while the worse patch is still there.

Bug #759098 was already reported about the reload-while-inactive part
that upstream changed after 208, but which is backported to current
Debian 208. This patch also restores the <= 208 semantics. (Note that
the rationale given in the upstream commit for that change was
dubious/wrong, and Lennart was not aware of this change history in the
discussion about this patch, so the situation is quite unclear).



> * cc46ad0 Add breaks on old syslog providers, they interact badly with the journal.
> 
> Adds breaks on syslog providers not supporting systemd, some
> unversioned. Probably not something to grab (especially unversioned
> breaks are harmful). But probably worth considering what the strategy is
> for syslog providers that don't support journald for jessie?

Do those break the syslog socket and prevent things from being logged to
the journal? If so, that seems bad enough that there should be some
mechanism to make sure the situation does not happen, at least not
without a conscious and explicit admin decision.