Michael, Thanks for this.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 04:08:28PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 25.07.22 um 14:05 schrieb Mark Hindley: > > > It has been suggested that changing the dependency to > > > > systemd-standalone-tmpfiles | systemd-tmpfiles > > > > would help the packaging system usually find the correct solution and > > reduce the > > number of unexpected surprises users are reporting. > > > > With this change, on a systemd installation the dependency would already be > > satisfied and therefore noop for APT. > > This is not correct. It would make the bootstrap phase more brittle as > outlined by ansgar. So this is certainly a no-go. I am afraid I can't find any detail of this beyond Ansgar's statement of this as fact[1]. Could you point me to the evidence and rationale of this concern, please? > I hate to repeat myself: add a Recommends or Depends on > systemd-standalone-tmpfiles to sysvinit-core to help apt choose the right > solution for such non-standard configurations. I also hate to repeat myself, but sysvinit-core makes no use of tmpfiles, therefore to add the dependency there would be incorrect and an abuse of the packaging system. In general, adding incorrect and spurious dependencies actually makes APT's job more difficult. And this proposal would have no benefit for users of other init systems. And it would not help people who are finding systemd pulled into their minimal containers[2]. Best wishes Mark [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1014805#24 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1014805#35
