Re: opentmpfiles & opensysusers, and its use in the Debian policy
On 1/3/20 7:15 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 03, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> That's where I don't agree. While it's nice to have such a declarative
>> system, I don't think it's reasonable to impose the implementation of
>> any change to systemd to all the other init systems.
> I do. Good luck persuading the consumers of this API that they should
> not use some features because you did not implement them in your own
> alternative package.
You seem to know very well the alternative implementations that we're
talking about. At least more than I do.
Could you please, therefore, tell me what feature is missing? If you
aren't able to point at it, then you're just doing FUD/trolling, instead
of letting me *try* the alternatives, and therefore, I'm politely asking
you to stop doing this, and give me some time for doing the work. If you
can tell what's wrong in these implementations, then that's super nice
of you to take the time to investigate with me and share, thanks for
doing it.
> Also, you have still not explained why we would need another
> implementation of these programs, except that "it's not systemd".
Because with it, we allow running something else than systemd like for
example OpenRC or sysv-rc, but not only: even maybe without an init
system at all (think: minimal chroot, containers, etc.) we could
continue to use the sysusers and tmpfiles light implementations. But
that's not my main goal.
The main goal is: I also like declarative things like sysusers and
tmpfiles, as they are less error-prone. By having an implementation that
can work everywhere, with or without systemd, using sysusers and
tmpfiles becomes non-controversial, and we can standardize on it (and
even write it in the stones of the policy). I'm trying to facilitate
using these 2 systemd facilities because they are nice (especially the
sysusers one).
> We systemd package maintainers have discussed using alternatives for
> these programs and I think that we have a strong consensus that this is
> not what alternatives are for: if another implementation is actually
> needed then it should conflict+provide something.
Why is this the case with systemd's tmpfiles and sysusers, but it's not
the same for gawk vs mawk? Since when in Debian users can't choose
alternative implementation? Oh, btw, "we support exploring alternatives"
is the winning option... That's precisely what I'm trying, though I'm
only getting bad feedback from the systemd fanboy team, instead of help
to do exactly what all the DDs have voted for (ie: exploring alternatives).
At this moment in time, I don't even know if open{tmpfiles,sysusers} are
even useful. I'm politely asking you to either help me find out, or just
do nothing (this includes: stop giving bad feedback).
>> You are being obviously biased toward systemd here. Just try to think a
> Indeed: obviously, most people actually do not mind using systemd...
As in, you think I don't? You are wrong. Clearly, you fail to see what
my motivations are. I am a systemd user, and I enjoy it. There's many
things I like about systemd, though that's probably off-topic.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: