Re: [arch-dev-public] systemd - move to base group and expect it to be installed?
andy...@archlinux.org on Wed, 2017/09/13 07:35:
> Maybe we should stop splitting
> systemd and simply make it part of "base" group to make sure all Arch users
> have all its parts installed.
We could merge systemd-sysvcompat (why does it exist?) into systemd, but I
think we need a split libsystemd to prevent a number of circular dependencies.
--
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/*Best regards my address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/*Chriscc -ox -xc - && ./x*/b/42*2-3)*42);}
pgpb0OtoKXubG.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migrating mail server on Sunday
On 2017年09月03日 03:33, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > Hi, > > I will migrate our mail server from nymeria to orion on Sunday > (tomorrow, September 3rd) starting around 12:00 UTC. The domains will > stay the same, user names will stay the same expect for one user. The > server may be unavailable for some time during the migration. > > User passwords are not migrated so you will have to set the password > again on orion using `passwd`. If you have already set a password > previously but forgot it, I can remove the password for you. > > Mailing lists will continue to work normally if the @lists.archlinux.org > addresses are used. @archlinux.org addresses will work again after the move. > > If you have any questions or notice any problems, please contact me via > mail or on IRC. > > Florian > Hi Florian, Please reset my password as well. Login name: farseerfc I don't remember I set a password, and I tried passwd command which requires me to enter my current password. Thanks! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Migrating mail server on Sunday
On 13.09.2017 11:07, Jiachen Yang via arch-dev-public wrote: > Please reset my password as well. > Login name: farseerfc Done Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] systemd - move to base group and expect it to be installed?
On Wed, 2017-09-13 at 07:35 +0200, andy...@archlinux.org wrote: > I've cleaned systemd-sysvcompat long time ago from all my systems. I didn't > know it is still alive and is meant to pull in main systemd. pacstrap, the arch-bootstrap tarball and the Arch installation media already have systemd pulled, so far, I didn't notice a change. Since filesystem use systemd-sysusers to initialize our users/groups, it should deps on systemd. It was suggested by Evangelos in FS#55492, but this create a circular deps, because filesystem <- systemd <- glibc <- filesystem. Maybe it's a better solution to make gblic drop filesystem dep and add a systemd dep to filesystem. However, put systemd in the base-devel make also sense like having glibc or filesystem. > Lately cups-filters failed to install when building in a clean chroot due to > missing "lp" group. Having systemd-sysvcompat in base should have pulled in > systemd and allow "lp" group creation. Maybe this is another trigger of the > systemd bug. > We should continue talking on the list. I don't think lp is a systemd bug, but a mistake from my side. I forgot to add it or to ask for moving it like i did for mlocate (FS#53539) or rfkill (FS#53525). It looks like the lp group is tied to cups and not multiple packages; do you think it should be moved to cups package? About the systemd bug, Lennart just pushed a fix which should land in v235. In the mean time, I think to push a new version with root and nobody defined in files to not have sshd segfault on new installations. > Maybe we should stop splitting systemd and simply make it part of "base" > group to make sure all Arch users have all its parts installed. Groups are a shortcut to pull a collection of packages. They are not designed to guarantee a set of packages remain installed. Your removal of systemd- sysvcompat is one example. If we want to have a set of package installed on all our Arch, we should use a base package which pull these packages. Cheers, signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[arch-dev-public] Travel
Hello, I'm starting a trip in Malaysia for 3 weeks. I should have network access but who knows. So please excuse some jitter in my responses. Cheers, Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [arch-dev-public] systemd - move to base group and expect it to be installed?
Le 12/09/2017 à 21:27, Giancarlo Razzolini a écrit : > Em setembro 12, 2017 14:58 Andreas Radke escreveu: >> New filesystem/systemd packages in testing have changed the way we >> create system users/groups. That's done now via systemd itself or using >> a systemd hook. So every package that needs certain user/group existent >> or certain UID/GID to install its file will depend on systemd to be >> installed on the system. >> >> Check https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/55492 - systemd is now part of >> base-devel. >> >> I think it's not consequent not to move it to base group. It's the only >> init system we support and therefor should be expected to be installed >> on every Arch installation from now on. User/group creating packages >> will need it installed in any way. >> >> Opinions? >> > Hi Andreas, > > We have discussed this on IRC and this has been a recurring theme over > the > years. So this finally made it to adp one way. Let’s start the official discussion about it. > I see two main things that derive from this: > > 1) base is assumed or not? I know some developers don't assume base > and list > it on their packages dependencies. > > We have been telling our users that base is assumed since at least > 2009 [0] Yes, but in fact most of us do not assume base as installed indeed. Even Andreas just proved us that he doesn’t have base installed on its system (at least systemd-sysvcompat is missing). As far as I’m concerned, I have at least 6 different machines, and none of them have the full base. Also, it’s not assumed by devtools in contrary to base-devel. Finally, I would say that the base group, as well as most other groups, are helpers to get things done at install time. But those should not be assumed. > > 2) The second thing that arises from the first is a broader question > which is > what do we consider a minimal arch installation? > > If the answer to this question is base, then we certainly *must* have > systemd > on it. And we can discuss trimming it down, because I think that base > has some > packages that shouldn't be there such as, netctl and dhcpcd (I use both). > > If the answer is not base, then we should have something like a > base-system > group which contains the bare minimum, like linux, glibc, pacman, > systemd and > its dependencies. That. We don’t need to list dependencies in the group itself (we don’t do that for base), especially because you don’t want to track dependencies changes of systemd also in the group. Or as per Sebastien idea, we could have a `base` or `arch` or -system package depending on the required packages. Bonus: you can change what’s in the minimal installation without having to tell users that this package is now in the group or this one isn’t anymore, pacman will handle that. ;) Regards, Bruno signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
