On Mon, 05 Jun 2023 at 01:36:25 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 at 14:56, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote:
> > So I think the only realistic options for packages that hard-require
> > this functionality (not all do) are:
> >
> > 1. Depends: systemd | systemd-tmpfiles
> > 2. Depends: systemd-tmpfiles-standalone | systemd-tmpfiles
> > 3. Depends: default-systemd-tmpfiles | systemd-tmpfiles
In case it's not obvious, (2.) should say
systemd-standalone-tmpfiles | systemd-tmpfiles (and the same everywhere
else that I mentioned systemd-tmpfiles-standalone).
> Our time is worth more than 80K or whatever it is of disk space in a
> throw-away container.
I agree that the systemd maintainers' time is a limited resource that we
should not waste, but that size estimate is off by a couple of orders of
magnitude. On amd64, aptitude tells me systemd-standalone-tmpfiles and
-sysusers are about 700K of Uncompressed Size between them, while the
full systemd and libsystemd-shared packages add up to about 15M. For
genuinely throwaway containers, yes, it's not worth optimizing this,
but for containers that will be archived in a registry and/or kept
running longer-term, that seems like enough that maintainers of Docker
containers, etc. will want to use the standalone binaries if they are
sufficient for the container's needs.
(This is ignoring any extra library dependencies that might be required by
systemd and libsystemd-shared but unnecessary for the standalone binaries;
if there are any, then obviously the effective size delta increases.)
smcv
