On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 09:53:06PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Forwarding this to the CTTE, just in case they have some input on this > proposed plan. > > > -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Re: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an > independent package > Datum: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:21:39 +0200 > Von: Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> > An: 946...@bugs.debian.org, Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>, Ansgar > <ans...@43-1.org>, Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> > > A small update here: > v246 provides a build switch -Dstandalone-binaries=true: > ` > option('standalone-binaries', type : 'boolean', value : 'false', > description : 'also build standalone versions of supported binaries') > ` > > Atm, those supported binaries are systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers. > Those binaries do not link against libsystemd-shared and have minimal > dependencies. > > Fedora decided to ship those binaries in separate binary packages named > systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles, which > conflict with the main systemd package, i.e. the main systemd package > will continue to ship systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers linking > against libsystemd-shared. > > 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 > dependencies. > > 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
Probably stating the obvious here, but just in case: Both systemd and the proposed new packages should also have a "Provides:" header with something common so that packages that try to use systemd-tmpfiles and/or systemd-sysusers can depend on that something without requiring a 'Depends: systemd | systemd-standalone-tmpfiles'? -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard