Hi Matthew (2025.10.02_14:57:12_+0200)
=== BEGIN === In #1115317, the Technical Committee (TC) was asked about the future of /var/lock, following a systemd upload which made this directory only writable by root. Bug #1110980 was opened against systemd, pointing out that FHS (and thus Debian Policy) has /var/lock as the standard interface for system-wide locks of serial devices and similar. In the upstream discussion of the issue ( https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/38563 ) the systemd authors declined to remain FHS-compliant, but rather noted that downstream distributions might wish to arrange for systemd to create /var/lock with appropriate permissions if they wish to. Nevertheless, #1110980 was closed "wontfix". The TC is sympathetic to the argument that flock(2) is a superior locking mechanism, and that an end-state where all existing software that still uses locks in /var/lock is migrated to using flock(2) instead would be desirable. 0) The Technical Committee notes that an important part of the role of a Debian Developer is ensuring that software in Debian complies with Debian Policy. That a particular upstream is not interested in FHS compliance is not a sufficient reason for a Debian package to disregard the FHS as it is incorporated into Debian Policy. The TC therefore resolves that systemd shall provide /var/lock with relaxed enough permissions that existing Debian software that uses /var/lock for system-wide locks of serial devices (and similar purposes) works again. The TC exercises its power under constitution #6.1.4 to overrule the systemd maintainers in this regard. 1) This change to systemd must persist until a satisfactory migration of impacted software has occurred and Policy updated accordingly. 2) This change to systemd must persist until Policy has been updated to allow otherwise. 3) This change to systemd must persist until the TC allows otherwise, which the TC expects to do once a suitable transition plan has been agreed. Ballot options: A) Issue items 0 + 1 B) Issue items 0 + 2 C) Issue items 0 + 3 N) None of the above === END ===
I vote: A > C > B > NThe change in systemd seems to be in the right direction, but some steps still need to be taken to get the project there. There is a transition that needs to be coordinated. So I support changing systemd to support the old style lock files until this transition is complete.
If we reach the point that policy has been updated, the transition is probably done. But I wouldn't want to put what's really a Release Team call onto the Policy Editors, so I prefer A to B. I'd rather it was our problem than the Plicy Editors, so I prefer C to B. I am comfortable in the non-specific project decision in A, so I rank it first.
I hope somebody will step up to coordinate this transition and get it done soon.
Stefano -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature