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.
Description: PGP signature