Hi, * Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> [2025-10-02 13:57]:
=== 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 > N I think it is important that the TC expresses clear expectations, and Ifeel option B is too vague and implicitly asks the Policy editors to rule in our stead, which puts undue burden on them. I rate option A over option C because I'd rather see the usual Debian processes take over and not make the TC the defacto transition driver.
Cheers Timo -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature