Hello world, Dmitry Smirnov <only...@debian.org> Tue, 14 Jul 2020 18:04:45 +1000: > Not yet, unfortunately. Sorry for inconvenience. I'm going to seek > CTTE advise on #959174...
I am joining the conversation as an individual (so I'm not wearing any tech-ctte hat yet), prompted by this. Do note that this has _not yet_ happened; we only got this notice on IRC around a week ago: dear ctte, I'm not sure whether #959828 has been referred to you already. in case that happens: I've started an attempt at mediating and I would be interested in helping on this matter. I took a quick read of the bug (please don't expect me to have grasped the details of the issue), and my initial thoughts are: - Systemd _does_ provide an amazing amount of core system facilities under a same package, some of which are prone to be reimplemented for $reasons. - There are many important system aspects that systemctl does not, and will not, attempt to cover. Systemd ship 36 executable binaries, systemctl ships only one. → Hence, I believe systemctl's statement «Provides: systemd» cannot be taken as descriptive enough. At least two breakage cases have been presented, and I'm sure many more will follow - The current situation does not allow systemctl to be at all useful in a generalizable way. This is, of course, source of frustration to many people feeling systemctl to be a good enough (or better) alternative for their specific use case - And there are several such use cases documented; containers are probably the easiest example. Maybe we could improve on the problem putting it upside down: What if systemd stated "Provides:" for their main interfaces? While not every provided binary would qualify as a "main interface", I think a line such as: Provides: journalctl, loginctl, systemctl would make sense for systemd. Other scripts could depend on the specific functionality they make use of. Probably, the systemctl package would require a rename to 'docker-systemctl' or something like that (the upstream name is 'docker systemctl replacement'). What is the systemd maintainers view of this idea? And the systemctl's? Greetings,
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature