On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:45:14PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Is my understanding correct that you are saying that while tmpfiles > might become part of the (transitive) essential set that is always > installed, we would still need package dependencies for ensuring > the correct order of package configuration during upgrades?
Probably. It depends on the exact sequence of events. In principle, some essential package could now depend on systemd-tmpfiles. Then once forky is released, packages could start relying on it being there. I very much expect that we want forky packages to be able to rely on systemd-tmpfiles. Those packages cannot assume systemd-tmpfiles presence, because the package depending on systemd-tmpfiles might be upgraded later. So all packages that want to rely on systemd-tmpfiles in forky must carry the dependency. > This would rule out my [A] option, since the dependency would exist > also in "no init" situations.[1] We could still get A for duke without additional dependencies, but for forky I am inclined to agree. Helmut
