[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1115317: call for votes



Hi,

The outcome is no longer in doubt, the winner is:
A) Issue items 0 + 1

The Technical Committee resolves as follows:

=== 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.

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.

This change to systemd must persist until a satisfactory migration
of impacted software has occurred and Policy updated accordingly.

=== END ===

Regards,

Matthew

Attachment: pgptqPmdkKPZe.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature


Reply to: