Remove the systemd socket activation functionality

[mike-sul]

Signed-off-by: Mykhaylo Sul myk.sul@gmail.com

[lbonn]

You should be able to remove BUILD_SYSTEMD and everything related.

[mike-sul]

You should be able to remove BUILD_SYSTEMD and everything related.

Yeah, I hope so :)

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1437 into master will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1437      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.48%   80.51%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         183      182       -1     
  Lines       10973    10965       -8     
==========================================
- Hits         8832     8828       -4     
+ Misses       2141     2137       -4

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/aktualizr_secondary/socket_server.h	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/aktualizr_secondary/aktualizr_secondary.cc	18.69% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/aktualizr_secondary/socket_server.cc	14.54% <100%> (-1.98%)	⬇️
src/libaktualizr/storage/sqlstorage.cc	76.89% <0%> (-0.23%)	⬇️
src/libaktualizr/storage/sqlstorage_base.cc	80.4% <0%> (+1.35%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ec530e5...52a8b29. Read the comment docs.

[pattivacek]

Looks good, but I still see a reference to socket_activation in docs/doxygen/Doxyfile.in. And do we still need to keep around the SocketServer class in src/aktualizr_secondary/socket_server.h?

[mike-sul]

Looks good, but I still see a reference to socket_activation in docs/doxygen/Doxyfile.in. And do we still need to keep around the SocketServer class in src/aktualizr_secondary/socket_server.h?

• removed the socket_activation reference from the doxygen file.

• Yes, that's actually a TCP server implementation that the IP secondary relies on.

[pattivacek]

• removed the socket_activation reference from the doxygen file.

Thanks!

• Yes, that's actually a TCP server implementation that the IP secondary relies on.

I figured, just wanted to confirm. Thanks!

And is the "not ready" label still accurate? Seems good to go to me.