[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#947847: Bug#952897: opentmpfiles: Please make opentmpfiles to be drop-in replacement to systemd-tmpfiles

On 3/1/20 5:15 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Package: opentmpfiles
> Version: 0.2+2019.05.21.git.44a55796ba-2
> Severity: important
> Dear Maintainer,
> to make opentmpfiles usable for package maintainers
> it needs to be drop-in replacement in a sense that
> I can rely on the interface to be available for my
> packages.  Not by calling extra script, not by adding
> extra shell spaghetti to decide whether systemd-tmpfiles
> is available and if not try opentmpfiles and if not ...
> As a packager I want to be able to freely use the
> declaratife interfaces provided by systemd even when
> writing sysv-rc scripts.  The other option would be
> to just drop the init script and provide just the
> service file, but I am not decided I want to go
> this path.
> Ondrej

Hi Ondrej,

I very much agree with this, which is why there's a bug open against the
tech ctte: #947847 (which I'm CC-ing hereby). That's probably too much
reading. Basically, I'm asking the tech ctte what is the best way to
achieve what you described above. We're down to:

- using update-alternatives

The tech ctte and the systemd maintainer expressed themselves against
the idea.

- having systemd package tmpfiles and sysusers in separate packages, and
have them conflict with open{sysusers,tmpfiles}

This could work, but would need some non-trivial work from systemd
maintainers, also the systemd version may be a little too big. Also,
that's micro-packaging, and we're not sure if that's the solution. If we
go that path, maybe we will need 2 new virtual packages.

- using dpkg-divert in open{sysusers,tmpfiles} to replace the systemd

That's really what I would hate doing, because this would hide things
from our users. Most Debian users don't even know about dpkg-divert, and
even less how to use it.

The question I've opened to the tech ctte is wider than just how to
package open{sysusers,tmpfiles}, it's also about how reverse dependency
should use it. Contrary to what I've been told, the point of using
open{sysusers,tmpfiles} goes beyond just non-linux ports: I want them to
be real alternatives, including in small environment (containers, VMs,
embedded), and I want that any user can choose what to use, even if
systemd is installed. I hope I'll be heard.

So, this bug will continue to be open until the tech ctte decides, or
the systemd maintainers agree to be open{sysusers,tmpfiles} friendly,
whatever comes first. Until then, I'm also putting on hold any work on
these 2 packages.


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply to: