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

Bug#947847: Fwd: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an independent package

Forwarding this to the CTTE, just in case they have some input on this
proposed plan.

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an
independent package
Datum: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:21:39 +0200
Von: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
An: 946456@bugs.debian.org, Felipe Sateler <fsateler@debian.org>, Ansgar
<ansgar@43-1.org>, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>

A small update here:
v246 provides a build switch -Dstandalone-binaries=true:
option('standalone-binaries', type : 'boolean', value : 'false',
       description : 'also build standalone versions of supported binaries')

Atm, those supported binaries are systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers.
Those binaries do not link against libsystemd-shared and have minimal

Fedora decided to ship those binaries in separate binary packages named
systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles, which
conflict with the main systemd package, i.e. the main systemd package
will continue to ship systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers linking
against libsystemd-shared.

I like this approach and think we should do the same in Debian.
Users, which have the full systemd package installed don't have any
negative side effects, which could result from splitting out
systemd-tmpfiles/systemd-sysusers and libsystemd-shared.

Restricted/non-systemd environments, like containers, can use
systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles with minimal

We could debate whether systemd-standalone-tmpfiles and
systemd-standalone-sysusers should be provided by a single binary
package, but since Fedora has already done this split this way, I would
simply follow here and use the same binary package names.
The relevant Fedora PR is
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/pull-request/27 fwiw.

Thankfully, -Dstandalone-binaries=true doesn't require a separate, third
build variant (as with the udeb flavour), so build times shouldn't go up.

If there are no objections to this approach I would proceed and
implement it like this:
- Build systemd with -Dstandalone-binaries=true
- Install the standalone binaries in binary packages named
systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles
- Those binaries packages would only ship /bin/systemd-sysusers resp.
/bin/systemd-tmpfiles and have a Conflicts/Replaces: systemd

In case there are no objections to this plan, I would create a MR on salsa.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: