Bug#947847: Fwd: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an independent package
Hello Michael,
On Wed 07 Oct 2020 at 09:53PM +02, Michael Biebl wrote:
> A small update here:
> v246 provides a build switch -Dstandalone-binaries=true:
> `
> option('standalone-binaries', type : 'boolean', value : 'false',
>description : 'also build standalone versions of supported binaries')
> `
>
> Atm, those supported binaries are systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers.
> Those binaries do not link against libsystemd-shared and have minimal
> dependencies.
>
> Fedora decided to ship those binaries in separate binary packages named
> systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles, which
> conflict with the main systemd package, i.e. the main systemd package
> will continue to ship systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers linking
> against libsystemd-shared.
>
> 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
From an ftpteam perspective it would probably be preferable to have a
single systemd-standalone binary package which could, if you wanted,
have Provides: systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles.
Otherwise, LGTM.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bug#947847: Fwd: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an independent package
Michael Biebl dijo [Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 09:53:06PM +0200]: > Forwarding this to the CTTE, just in case they have some input on this > proposed plan. > (...) > A small update here: > v246 provides a build switch -Dstandalone-binaries=true: > (...) > Atm, those supported binaries are systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers. > Those binaries do not link against libsystemd-shared and have minimal > dependencies. > (...) > 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. > (...) > 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 This seems like a good solution for the issue in question, and does not seem to have any ill effects. So, yes, I'd say go for it! Regarding Wouter's point (having systemd Provide: systemd-standalone-sysusers, systemd-standalone-tmpfiles), it looks sensible, but it might break down in the future if many more such cases are spotted. But, at least for now, it does make sense. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#947847: Fwd: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an independent package
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 09:53:06PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Forwarding this to the CTTE, just in case they have some input on this
> proposed plan.
>
>
> Weitergeleitete Nachricht
> Betreff: Re: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an
> independent package
> Datum: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:21:39 +0200
> Von: Michael Biebl
> An: 946...@bugs.debian.org, Felipe Sateler , Ansgar
> , Niels Thykier
>
> A small update here:
> v246 provides a build switch -Dstandalone-binaries=true:
> `
> option('standalone-binaries', type : 'boolean', value : 'false',
>description : 'also build standalone versions of supported binaries')
> `
>
> Atm, those supported binaries are systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers.
> Those binaries do not link against libsystemd-shared and have minimal
> dependencies.
>
> Fedora decided to ship those binaries in separate binary packages named
> systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles, which
> conflict with the main systemd package, i.e. the main systemd package
> will continue to ship systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers linking
> against libsystemd-shared.
>
> 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
Probably stating the obvious here, but just in case:
Both systemd and the proposed new packages should also have a
"Provides:" header with something common so that packages that try to
use systemd-tmpfiles and/or systemd-sysusers can depend on that
something without requiring a 'Depends: systemd |
systemd-standalone-tmpfiles'?
--
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Bug#947847: Fwd: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an independent package
Michael Biebl writes: > > 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 Speaking for myself, it sounds reasonable. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#947847: Fwd: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an independent package
Forwarding this to the CTTE, just in case they have some input on this
proposed plan.
Weitergeleitete Nachricht
Betreff: Re: Bug#946456: systemd: Provide systemd-sysusers as an
independent package
Datum: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:21:39 +0200
Von: Michael Biebl
An: 946...@bugs.debian.org, Felipe Sateler , Ansgar
, Niels Thykier
A small update here:
v246 provides a build switch -Dstandalone-binaries=true:
`
option('standalone-binaries', type : 'boolean', value : 'false',
description : 'also build standalone versions of supported binaries')
`
Atm, those supported binaries are systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers.
Those binaries do not link against libsystemd-shared and have minimal
dependencies.
Fedora decided to ship those binaries in separate binary packages named
systemd-standalone-sysusers and systemd-standalone-tmpfiles, which
conflict with the main systemd package, i.e. the main systemd package
will continue to ship systemd-tmpfiles and systemd-sysusers linking
against libsystemd-shared.
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?
Michael
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
