On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 06:32:22 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > In essence, I think that for moving your use case forward, someone needs > to implement the systemd-tmpfiles interface (which is much better > defined than systemd), package it and have it provide systemd-tmpfiles.
https://packages.debian.org/sid/opentmpfiles is one known implementation of the tmpfiles.d interface, other than systemd's. (See also #947847.) If the systemd maintainers are willing to split out systemd-tmpfiles from the systemd binary package, that would be another possible implementation to use in containers where the Installed-Size of systemd is not desired. It seems they might be willing to do so, but it hasn't been a high priority. (See #946456; its title is about -sysusers, but most conversations around tmpfiles.d and sysusers.d seem to agree that whatever changes might happen for one of those interfaces, it makes sense to do the same for the other at the same time, because they're conceptually fairly similar.) It is very common for systemd units to rely on systemd features that are conceptually simpler/lower-level than the service manager, such as tmpfiles.d support - for example, /etc/init.d/dbus creates necessary files in /run and /var as needed, but dbus.service relies on /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/dbus.conf for that functionality - so I think a Depends (or Recommends?) on an implementation of the tmpfiles.d interface would make docker-systemctl-replacement able to start a lot more systemd units successfully. smcv
