Re: opentmpfiles & opensysusers, and its use in the Debian policy
Am Do., 2. Jan. 2020 um 17:28 Uhr schrieb Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org>:
>
> Thomas Goirand writes:
> > [...]
> > I'm not sure why
> > there's both /bin/systemd-sysusers and /usr/bin/systemd-sysusers, and
> > which one should be used.
>
> For the same reason there is /bin/bash and /usr/bin/bash probably?
I don't have both of those. Since I am on an usrmerged system though,
/bin/systemd-sysusers and /usr/bin/systemd-sysusers are exactly the
same binary. Maybe that's the thing that caused a bit of confusion?
Personally, I think it might make a lot more sense to have tools
depending on systemd-sysusers depend on the original systemd package,
given that those binaries can be used without systemd being PID1. That
of course needs people to write initscripts for them, which may need
to live in a separate package (or possibly even be part of the
alternative initsystems themselves, for easy maintenance) so people
who want them can pull them in. If pulling in the bigger systemd
package is a problem (as not everything in there works if systemd
isn't PID1), possibly splitting the sysusers binaries out to a
separate package may work as well.
By using the systemd-provided files, we can ensure that any possible
new features are immediately available everywhere and nothing has to
"catch up", and systemd systems won't get confused over which
implementation is the right one currently.
In any case, the existence of opensysusers/opentmpfiles is really
great already, that makes using these features viable faster and with
much less friction, since every system will be supported
Cheers,
Matthias
--
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Reply to: