Re: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an independent package
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Forwarding this here, in case it's of interest.
Thanks, this will probably help to fix the Tomcat situation
for bullseye. (It’s still uninstallable in buster.)
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Bug#947847: Fwd: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an
> independent package
> Resent-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 19:57:04 +0000
> Resent-From: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
> Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
> Resent-CC: Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>
> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 21:53:06 +0200
> From: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
> Reply-To: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, 947847@bugs.debian.org
> To: 947847 <947847@bugs.debian.org>
>
> Forwarding this to the CTTE, just in case they have some input on this
> proposed plan.
>
>
> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Re: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an
> independent package
> Datum: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:21:39 +0200
> Von: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
> An: 946456@bugs.debian.org, Felipe Sateler <fsateler@debian.org>, Ansgar
> <ansgar@43-1.org>, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
>
> A small update here:
> v246 provides a build switch -Dstandalone-binaries=true:
> `
> option('standalone-binaries', type : 'boolean', value : 'false',
> description : 'also build standalone versions of supported binaries')
> `
>
> Atm, those supported binaries are systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers.
> Those binaries do not link against libsystemd-shared and have minimal
> dependencies.
>
> Fedora decided to ship those binaries in separate binary packages named
> systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles, which
> conflict with the main systemd package, i.e. the main systemd package
> will continue to ship systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers linking
> against libsystemd-shared.
>
> I like this approach and think we should do the same in Debian.
> Users, which have the full systemd package installed don't have any
> negative side effects, which could result from splitting out
> systemd-tmpfiles/systemd-sysusers and libsystemd-shared.
>
> Restricted/non-systemd environments, like containers, can use
> systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles with minimal
> dependencies.
>
> We could debate whether systemd-standalone-tmpfiles and
> systemd-standalone-sysusers should be provided by a single binary
> package, but since Fedora has already done this split this way, I would
> simply follow here and use the same binary package names.
> The relevant Fedora PR is
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/pull-request/27 fwiw.
>
> Thankfully, -Dstandalone-binaries=true doesn't require a separate, third
> build variant (as with the udeb flavour), so build times shouldn't go up.
>
> If there are no objections to this approach I would proceed and
> implement it like this:
> - Build systemd with -Dstandalone-binaries=true
> - Install the standalone binaries in binary packages named
> systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles
> - Those binaries packages would only ship /bin/systemd-sysusers resp.
> /bin/systemd-tmpfiles and have a Conflicts/Replaces: systemd
>
>
> In case there are no objections to this plan, I would create a MR on salsa.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Michael
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg
*************************************************
Mit unserem Consulting bieten wir Unternehmen maßgeschneiderte Angebote in
Form von Beratung, Trainings sowie Workshops in den Bereichen
Softwaretechnologie, IT Strategie und Architektur, Innovation und Umsetzung
sowie Agile Organisation.
Besuchen Sie uns auf https://www.tarent.de/consulting .
Wir freuen uns auf Ihren Kontakt.
*************************************************
Reply to: