On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 11:58:07 +0100 Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 at 11:37:51 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > > On Sun 04 Jun 2023 at 02:56PM +01, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > Another possible mitigation which I haven't previously seen proposed > > > is giving *elogind* a Depends or Recommends on systemd-*- standalone. > > > I think that would work to mitigate the failure mode with (1.) and (B.), > > > and the installed-size argument seems less interesting here because the > > > sort of systems that require elogind are already much larger anyway. > > > Would the elogind maintainers be willing to consider this? Does anyone > > > see a reason why it wouldn't work? > > > > So to confirm, you think that if the elogind maintainers did this, then > > default-systemd-tmpfiles could point at systemd rather than > > systemd-standalone-tmpfiles, which the systemd maintainers prefer, but > > in addition, there aren't any scenarios in which people's systems are > > likely to be re-arranged when they don't want them to be? > > Exactly. My hope is that if we had: > > Package: systemd > Architecture: linux-any > Provides: default-systemd-tmpfiles, systemd-tmpfiles > Conflicts: systemd-tmpfiles > Replaces: systemd-tmpfiles > > Package: systemd-standalone-tmpfiles > Architecture: linux-any > Provides: systemd-tmpfiles > Conflicts: systemd-tmpfiles > Replaces: systemd-tmpfiles > > Package: elogind > Depends: systemd-standalone-tmpfiles # or Recommends? > > Package: foo-service # any package that requires tmpfiles.d(5) > Depends: default-systemd-tmpfiles | systemd-tmpfiles > > # optionally, if someone does the work > Package: openrc-tmpfiles # any other implementation > Architecture: hurd-any kfreebsd-any > Provides: default-systemd-tmpfiles, systemd-tmpfiles > Conflicts: systemd-tmpfiles > Replaces: systemd-tmpfiles > > then the right thing (or at least *a* right thing) would happen in > all cases: > > * install foo-service on a systemd-booted system: > systemd is already installed and the dependency is satisfied > > * install foo-service on a sysvinit-booted desktop system with elogind: > elogind is already installed, therefore systemd-standalone-tmpfiles is > already installed and the dependency is satisfied, avoiding #1016006 etc. > > * install foo-service on a sysvinit-booted headless system with no elogind: > systemd gets installed as a dependency by default, which is what the > systemd maintainers would prefer to happen when there are no compelling > space constraints; but the user can specifically ask for > systemd-standalone-tmpfiles if that's what they'd prefer > > * install foo-service in a container with no init system at all: Sounds like a good plan to me. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part