Re: opentmpfiles & opensysusers, and its use in the Debian policy
Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:
> Yes, there's drawbacks in general. However, you *cannot* just say, we're
> going to use the systemd implementation "just because it's the
> refrence", without even giving me some space to at least *TRY* the
> alternative, to see if it's valuable or not.
Yes, I agree.
> As I wrote earlier, there's an easy path out: drop the systemd
> implementation entirely, and standardize on open{tmpfiles,sysusers}
> implementation.
This certainly doesn't seem easy to me. It sounds like a lot more
integration work and pain, would involve replacing something that's
already working well, and would require proof that implementations written
in shell, which as a programming language is unsafe around file system
edge cases without extreme caution, handles the numerous security concerns
that the systemd implementations have been hardened against.
However, I completely agree that there's no reason not to try out the
packages and take a closer look, and even if all the things I'm concerned
about are true, they may still have a valuable role in our ecosystem for
support of non-Linux kernels.
> But maybe we should first *try* open{tmpfiles,sysusers} to see if it has
> any value.
Yes. I agree with this.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: