On Wed, 2022-08-03 at 09:27 +0100, Mark Hindley wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 10:11:29AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > > No, that would be a bad idea since systemd already ships its own, > > preferred implementation. > > Is there a difference between the built-in and standalone > implementation other than the packaging?
Yes, executable size for example. A reasonable alternative to include container user needs better might be to require init systems to provide tmpfiles (i.e., depend on a implementation) and packages to not depend on it if they only use tmpfiles if required for service startup via the system service manager. (I'm not sure if tmpfiles are always used this way.) That way people who start services directly in a init-less container would not require a tmpfiles implementation to be installed, but would have to perfor undocumented extra steps (but that's not really a change if one does not use the system-provided startup configuration). Sadly such container usage conflicts with the sysvinit maintainers position that packages should explicitly depend on specific init systems :( Ansgar
