MBF: packages shipping init scripts without corresponding systemd units

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 10:31:35PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 at 22:29, Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > According to Lintian there are 314 packages shipping init scripts
> > without a corresponding systemd unit:
> >
> > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-systemd-service-for-init.d-script
> >
> > They currently work because there is still a transitional unit
> > generator that creates a unit on-the-fly on boot. This was always
> > intended as a temporary stop-gap, and is technically vastly inferior to
> > a native unit, as for example it cannot tell the difference between a
> > one-shot and a long-running service, and cannot enable any hardening or
> > sandboxing options.
> >
> > Now the generator is also on the way to be deprecated and removed. It's
> > been there for a decade, which is enough time to complete the
> > transition, and will likely be removed before Trixie ships.
> >
> > Therefore I filed a bug against all affected packages, provided a patch
> > for policy:
> >
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1039102
> >
> > and a patch for Lintian to bump the severity from warning to error:
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/merge_requests/407
> >
> > It's possible that there will be a good chunk of false positives, as
> > often new units added don't have a name that matches exactly the old
> > init script name, in which case it's fine to add an override and close
> > the bug.
> 
> It would probably make things easier if I typed the destination
> address correctly.

It's generally expected that you discuss MBFs on this list *before*
actually performing the MBF, so that other options can be discussed, but
meh, whatever.

-- 
     w at uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}

I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.