[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

Michael Biebl dijo [Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 09:53:06PM +0200]:
> Forwarding this to the CTTE, just in case they have some input on this
> proposed plan.
> (...)
> A small update here:
> v246 provides a build switch -Dstandalone-binaries=true:
> (...)
> Atm, those supported binaries are systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers.
> Those binaries do not link against libsystemd-shared and have minimal
> dependencies.
> (...)
> 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.
> (...)
> 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

This seems like a good solution for the issue in question, and does
not seem to have any ill effects. So, yes, I'd say go for it!

Regarding Wouter's point (having systemd Provide:
systemd-standalone-sysusers, systemd-standalone-tmpfiles), it looks
sensible, but it might break down in the future if many more such
cases are spotted. But, at least for now, it does make sense.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: