* Helmut Grohne <[email protected]> [260713 13:15]:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 02:49:39PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 12:20:16 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
[..]
Given the state of discussion, I am pretty sure that a virtual package
(that has been proposed elsewhere already) is the way to go.
I'll note that it could also be a real package which is otherwise
empty, just to hold the dependencies. This would be somewhat like
the `init` package.
I'm not so sure that we really *are* adding -tmpfiles to the transitively
Essential set, and if we are not, then that makes Adrian's reasoning less
compelling.
I still hope that we can get away keeping tmpfiles out of essential
while having it in the required set (aka debootstrap variant minbase).
Let me raise an argument against making it essential. Essential packages
must work at all times in an unpacked state. It is known that packages
that link libsystemd0 (e.g. systemd) do not always work during upgrades.
While systemd-standalone-tmpfiles could fill the essential spot, systemd
providing systemd-tmpfiles could not.
[..]
The systemd implementation of tmpfiles also requires /proc, which is
less than ideal in a number of important-yet-not-default cases, for
example chroots and (system) images currently under construction.
Best,
Chris
