[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

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 09:53:06PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 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
> dependencies.
> 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
> dependencies.
> 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

Probably stating the obvious here, but just in case:

Both systemd and the proposed new packages should also have a
"Provides:" header with something common so that packages that try to
use systemd-tmpfiles and/or systemd-sysusers can depend on that
something without requiring a 'Depends: systemd |

To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy

  -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard

Reply to: