On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 6:25 PM Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 4/23/19 2:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > We have two eclasses with almost-identical functions for handling > > tmpfiles.d entries: > > > > 1. systemd.eclass > > > > a. systemd_dotmpfilesd > > b. systemd_newtmpfilesd > > c. systemd_tmpfiles_create > > > > 2. tmpfiles.eclass > > > > a. dotmpfiles > > b. newtmpfiles > > c. tmpfiles_process > > > > The do/new functions are basically identical, while the create/process > > functions differ only in the fact that the one from tmpfiles.eclass > > supports opentmpfiles as well. Why do we have both? Couldn't the > > systemd.eclass ones be implemented in terms of the tmpfiles.eclass ones, > > and then deprecated (in favor of tmpfiles.eclass itself) in newer EAPIs? > > > > Or am I missing something? > > Note that systemd.eclass is lighter on dependencies, which is why I > chose it for the solution to bug 490676 [1] and bug 643386 [2] in the > sys-apps/portage ebuilds. > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/490676 > [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/643386
Having reviewed bug 643386, I would certainly call Portage's use of tmpfiles.d to be a "special case". There is no reason to depend on virtual/tmpfiles or to call tmpfiles --create in pkg_postinst. I don't think relying on the functions in systemd.eclass is a great solution. A couple of alternatives I would propose: 1. Add a magic variable to tmpfiles.eclass to disable the RDEPEND for packages that do not need to call tmpfiles --create on postinst or on system boot. 2. Revert back to insinto /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d and doins to avoid using tmpfiles.eclass or systemd.eclass.
