Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an independent package
josh at joshtriplett.org
Wed Oct 7 23:55:53 BST 2020
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:21:39 +0200 Michael Biebl <biebl at debian.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
This seems like a great plan. I look forward to seeing it. I'm hopeful
that this will make it easier for packages to start relying on
systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers.
More information about the Pkg-systemd-maintainers