On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:21:39 +0200 Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote: > 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 > > > In case there are no objections to this plan, I would create a MR on salsa. > > Thoughts?
This seems like a great plan. I look forward to seeing it. I'm hopeful that this will make it easier for packages to start relying on systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers.