Re: Update: s6 and utmps rpm package
> > tipidee would be a good one. I plan to release tipidee-0.4.0.0 very soon > and have an Alpine package for it early next week, if you want to have > example scripts. Sure, I can wait tipidee. >> So, is s6-rc a good candidate for rpm package? I am preparing to build s6-rc >> package in next few days. > > Having a s6-rc package won't hurt. I'm not sure it would be useful, > because there's no point in having an alternative service manager when you > already have systemd, but it's not doing any harm. I can package s6-rc. If we choose yum/dnf repo to release this pacakages, there is no problem, If we choose to submit package to fedora, I guess they will refuse it because service manager conflict.
Re: Update: s6 and utmps rpm package
I would like to package an example service for s6. Could you suggest one? tipidee would be a good one. I plan to release tipidee-0.4.0.0 very soon and have an Alpine package for it early next week, if you want to have example scripts. So, is s6-rc a good candidate for rpm package? I am preparing to build s6-rc package in next few days. Having a s6-rc package won't hurt. I'm not sure it would be useful, because there's no point in having an alternative service manager when you already have systemd, but it's not doing any harm. Thanks for your suggestion, when I see the content of utmp-prepare and utmp-init, I have the same question: will this conflict with the existing utmp/wtmp service? Yes, this will conflict. Anything that's in the utmps package is made to work with a utmps installation, not with a regular glibc utmp installation. On Fedora, utmp works with glibc as is, so you shouldn't add anything. -- Laurent
Re: Update: s6 and utmps rpm package
> On Alpine, s6-ipcserver is in a separate package because Alpine is very > careful about disk space, so much that they wanted me to make utmps > available without the bulk of s6. (Yes, I find this pretty hypocritical > given other decisions they make, but I was tired of arguing with them.) > > On RedHat, you will not have the same concern: s6 is a drop in the water > compared to the amount of disk space you need to boot anyway. So it does > not make sense to separate s6 from s6-ipcserver, and I suggest making the > utmps package depend on the s6 package anyway. > Ok, I will merge s6-ipcserver into s6 package. > This is a separate question from running the [uwb]tmpd services under > s6-svscan or systemd. Both approaches have advantages. > > Running the utmps services under systemd: > - they start earlier > - you can make any systemd service depend on them > > Running the utmps services under s6: > - independence from systemd, can be portable anywhere > - shows an example of how to run a service under s6 > I would like to package an example service for s6. Could you suggest one? > >> 3. Run btmpd, utmpd, wtmpd as s6-rc service. Add two more dependencies: s6 >> and s6-rc. > > That option, on the other hand, isn't a good one. There is an argument > for running a s6 supervision tree under systemd, but there is little > argument for running s6-rc and having a parallel service manager ecosystem > - this probably adds more complexity than it's worth. (Unless it's for > transitional purposes, but transitioning Fedora out of systemd isn't > happening.) So, is s6-rc a good candidate for rpm package? I am preparing to build s6-rc package in next few days. > ... > > All of that being said, however, my opinion is that you *should not* > package utmps for Fedora. utmp management is a distro-wide decision: > the utmp database is unique and accessed by several components in the > system. Fedora uses glibc, and glibc has its own utmp implementation, > and all the existing Fedora packages expect utmp to be managed by the > glibc implementation. Adding utmps, and packages that will use utmps, > will introduce conflict, and break things. (The utmp databases won't > have the correct permissions, glibc will access the files directly > without the locking that utmps does and concurrent access will cause > file corruption, etc.) > > utmps isn't something that you can add like this and have some packages > depend on it and others not. It has to be a concerted effort by the whole > distribution, to decide if they switch to it or not. Alpine uses it > because musl doesn't provide a real utmp implementation; the transition > could be done incrementally without conflicting. glibc-based distros are > another story, a transition would need to be done atomically. And unless > you submit a proposal to Fedora and it is discussed and accepted by the > Powers That Be, it's not happening. Thanks for your suggestion, when I see the content of utmp-prepare and utmp-init, I have the same question: will this conflict with the existing utmp/wtmp service? Thanks for your detail response. Wang
Re: Update: s6 and utmps rpm package
As Laurent said, utmps depends on s6-ipcserver on alpine. s6 depends on s6-ipcserver on alpine. As s6 service utmps will depends on both s6-ipcserver and s6, if we follow the alpine way. > On Apr 12, 2024, at 18:51, Hoël Bézier wrote: > > Since s6-ipcserver is provided by s6, aren’t these two the same option, > regarding dependencies?
Re: Update: s6 and utmps rpm package
1. Run btmpd, utmpd, wtmpd as s6 service. But this option will add s6 as extra dependency. 2. Run btmpd, utmpd, wtmpd as systemd service. The dependency is minimal. Only depends on s6-ipcserver. On Alpine, s6-ipcserver is in a separate package because Alpine is very careful about disk space, so much that they wanted me to make utmps available without the bulk of s6. (Yes, I find this pretty hypocritical given other decisions they make, but I was tired of arguing with them.) On RedHat, you will not have the same concern: s6 is a drop in the water compared to the amount of disk space you need to boot anyway. So it does not make sense to separate s6 from s6-ipcserver, and I suggest making the utmps package depend on the s6 package anyway. This is a separate question from running the [uwb]tmpd services under s6-svscan or systemd. Both approaches have advantages. Running the utmps services under systemd: - they start earlier - you can make any systemd service depend on them Running the utmps services under s6: - independence from systemd, can be portable anywhere - shows an example of how to run a service under s6 3. Run btmpd, utmpd, wtmpd as s6-rc service. Add two more dependencies: s6 and s6-rc. That option, on the other hand, isn't a good one. There is an argument for running a s6 supervision tree under systemd, but there is little argument for running s6-rc and having a parallel service manager ecosystem - this probably adds more complexity than it's worth. (Unless it's for transitional purposes, but transitioning Fedora out of systemd isn't happening.) ... All of that being said, however, my opinion is that you *should not* package utmps for Fedora. utmp management is a distro-wide decision: the utmp database is unique and accessed by several components in the system. Fedora uses glibc, and glibc has its own utmp implementation, and all the existing Fedora packages expect utmp to be managed by the glibc implementation. Adding utmps, and packages that will use utmps, will introduce conflict, and break things. (The utmp databases won't have the correct permissions, glibc will access the files directly without the locking that utmps does and concurrent access will cause file corruption, etc.) utmps isn't something that you can add like this and have some packages depend on it and others not. It has to be a concerted effort by the whole distribution, to decide if they switch to it or not. Alpine uses it because musl doesn't provide a real utmp implementation; the transition could be done incrementally without conflicting. glibc-based distros are another story, a transition would need to be done atomically. And unless you submit a proposal to Fedora and it is discussed and accepted by the Powers That Be, it's not happening. -- Laurent
Re: Update: s6 and utmps rpm package
Hi, Am Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:51:21AM +0800 schrieb ericwq...@qq.com: 1. Run btmpd, utmpd, wtmpd as s6 service. But this option will add s6 as extra dependency. 2. Run btmpd, utmpd, wtmpd as systemd service. The dependency is minimal. Only depends on s6-ipcserver. Since s6-ipcserver is provided by s6, aren’t these two the same option, regarding dependencies? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
