Le mercredi, 29 janvier 2020, 16.07:21 h CET Thomas Goirand a écrit : > This reasoning can make sense, if we agree that we should use something > else than /bin/systemd-sysusers and standardize on something else like > /bin/sysusers. Then we modify the Debian policy that /bin/sysusers is > *the* way to do things, and using /bin/systemd-sysusers becomes a bug of > severity "serious" (policy violation).
We'd first have to agree that an alternative is actually _needed_. And so far,
the only arguments I have read in favour of providing alternatives to
/bin/systemd-sysusers are:
* A) it is shipped in the systemd binary package;
* B) Having competing implementations is important;
* C) it comes from the systemd project;
* D) it has a systemd-* name;
Out of these, A is the most convincing, B is mildly so; C & D are absolutely
irrelevant IMHO. If you're concerned by A, the request becomes:
> Please ship systemd-sysusers in a separate package for finer granularity and
> smaller installation size for non-systemd systems
If you're concerned by B, I don't think you need anything from systemd; just
convince enough maintainers that a non-systemd implementation is important,
and get them to change their scripts and dependencies to opensysusers. If you
really want a single sysusers implementation per system (what's the argument
there?), then go the /usr/bin/sysusers alternatives' route, and convince
maintainers to move to that virtual package.
--
OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
