Alexe Stefan <stefanalex...@gmail.com> writes: > One is written in shell, the other is written in c.(no problems here)
Not that implementation language matters. > One is not part of systemd, the other is. Both work fine without systemd, but the systemd implementation also happens not to be unmaintained and happens to be more complete. > How are they identical. The last rites message does not say that opentmpfiles and systemd-tmpfiles are identical. That'd do a disservice to the actually complete, unmaintained, and (currently) non-CVE-affected implementation in systemd. > I use this on my raspi server, works fine. 'WOMM' is a fairly terrible measure. > Gentoo really became a systemd distro, further restricting choice by > the day. [ignoring this nonsensical statement, notice put here for clarity] Gentoo devs aren't obliged to maintain software you like to use. systemd-utils[tmpfiles] works on all Gentoo systems, including non-systemd ones. Until that changes (which is unlikely), I doubt there will be much interest in maintaining a fork from inside Gentoo. Please take up opentmpfiles maintenance. You have https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/689954cc7fd55402dc4c82aa0ac70efb to address, and probably some other issues. See https://github.com/OpenRC/opentmpfiles/issues/19 for context. The message above implies that a rewrite in C is necessary. This should be rather easy. The systemd implementation is only ~4k LoC (excluding shared code), so I imagine that a complete reimplementation should be far less than 10k. Since this is fairly elementary stuff, it should be possible to finish in a weekends time. Submit a PR to re-add opentmpfiles after you're done. Looking forward to reviewing your contributions upstream. Have a lovely day :-) -- Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
