Bug#1093002: rng-tools-debian: systemd service fails instead of skipping

[Thorsten Glaser]

It looks like this is doing some checks, and intends to skip. But just
exiting means the service is recorded as failed, and this will likely
trip other tests, hence the severity to stop migrating to testing for
now.

Ah, ouch. Agreed.

There are several ways to do such checks natively _and_ resulting in a
service that is skipped, rather than failed.

I actually asked you (systemd maintainers in Cc) about this in:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D504044#162

Or, you could have a special exit status that means the service is
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/systemd.service.ht=

ml#SuccessExitStatus=3D
RestartPreventExitStatus was the one I found and wondered about.

You could run the script that does the check in an ExecCondition=3D
statement - if that fails, the service is marked as skipped.
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/systemd.service.ht=

ml#ExecCondition=3D

That=E2=80=99s also an option.

Would you mind looking at the aforementioned mail again, as it
also has other questions, and suggest how we best deal with this?

Additionally=E2=80=A6 what should we do if no random device is found,
as opposed to quietly not starting if one is found that doesn=E2=80=99t
need rngd to run? The sysvinit script will also just exit 0 in
that case, but it doesn=E2=80=99t have service tracking, and a subsequent
status query will show the d=C3=A6mon as not running, obviously. I=E2=80=99=
ve
got no idea how this maps best into the systemd ecosystem, though
I=E2=80=99m currently leaning towards making all the =E2=80=9Cexpected not =
to start=E2=80=9D
conditions the same.

Thanks in advance,
//mirabilos
--=20
[...] if maybe ext3fs wasn't a better pick, or jfs, or maybe reiserfs, oh b=
ut
what about xfs, and if only i had waited until reiser4 was ready... in the =
be-
ginning, there was ffs, and in the middle, there was ffs, and at the end, t=
here
was still ffs, and the sys admins knew it was good. :) -- Ted Unangst =C3=
=BCber *fs

[Thorsten Glaser]

If not, I=E2=80=99d lean towards one (which?) of the errorlevel-using on=

es,

because otherwise we=E2=80=99d have to run the detection code twice.

Not sure what you mean by 'one of the errorlevel-using ones'. Please
explain your idea in more details.

SuccessExitStatus or RestartPreventExitStatus, see further above
in the thread.

(I=E2=80=99d also s=CC=B2t=CC=B2i=CC=B2l=CC=B2l=CC=B2 like input from the s=
ystemd maintainers whether
we should exec the binary from the wrapper script or call it in
the background as is currently done.)

Thanks,
//mirabilos
--=20

Wish I had pine to hand :-( I'll give lynx a try, thanks.

Michael Schmitz on nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.ports.68k
a.k.a. {news.gmane.org/nntp}#news.gmane.linux.debian.ports.68k in pine

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:56:40 +0000
with message-id <E1tYafA-00FiF2-***@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#1093002: fixed in rng-tools-debian 2.6
has caused the Debian Bug report #1093002,
regarding rng-tools-debian: systemd service fails instead of skipping
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ***@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)