Le mercredi, 29 janvier 2020, 16.07:21 h CET Thomas Goirand a écrit : > This reasoning can make sense, if we agree that we should use something > else than /bin/systemd-sysusers and standardize on something else like > /bin/sysusers. Then we modify the Debian policy that /bin/sysusers is > *the* way to do things, and using /bin/systemd-sysusers becomes a bug of > severity "serious" (policy violation). We'd first have to agree that an alternative is actually _needed_. And so far, the only arguments I have read in favour of providing alternatives to /bin/systemd-sysusers are: * A) it is shipped in the systemd binary package; * B) Having competing implementations is important; * C) it comes from the systemd project; * D) it has a systemd-* name; Out of these, A is the most convincing, B is mildly so; C & D are absolutely irrelevant IMHO. If you're concerned by A, the request becomes: > Please ship systemd-sysusers in a separate package for finer granularity and > smaller installation size for non-systemd systems If you're concerned by B, I don't think you need anything from systemd; just convince enough maintainers that a non-systemd implementation is important, and get them to change their scripts and dependencies to opensysusers. If you really want a single sysusers implementation per system (what's the argument there?), then go the /usr/bin/sysusers alternatives' route, and convince maintainers to move to that virtual package. -- OdyX
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.