[Bug 1118740] New: Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Bug ID: 1118740
           Summary: Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific
                    package to satisfy systemd Provides
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL: http://vpavlin.fedorapeople.org/fakesystemd/fakesystemd.spec
SRPM URL:
http://vpavlin.fedorapeople.org/fakesystemd/fakesystemd-1-15.fc20.src.rpm

Description: 
fakesystemd is a minimal Docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides:
without installing systemd in Docker images. It is intended strictly for use in
Docker images/containers. It doesn't provide any functionality from systemd
package - it only contains few important directories and files. fakesystemd is
definitely not applicable for full bootable operation system.

If possible, it shouldn't be shipped in primary repo and should be available
only for building (Docker) images.

To install real systemd in the image you need to run yum swap command in this
form:

yum swap -- remove fakesystemd -- install systemd systemd-libs

Fedora Account System Username: vpavlin

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Matthew Miller  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Matthew Miller  ---
> If possible, it shouldn't be shipped in primary repo and should be available only for building (Docker) images.

That's not currently possible. Maybe in the future. We'll need to do some
sanity checking to make sure no installs pull this in instead of the real
systemd by accident.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Matthew Miller  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

--- Comment #2 from Matthew Miller  ---
I've got some pendantic things to clear up first.

1. Please make the summary shorter and the description longer, including a
gigantic warning not to install on a real system. And the summary shouldn't end
in a period. (I told you this was pedantic -- sorry!)

2. License says "GPL+", but no actual license text is included. Since this is
by nature minimal, what about using a much simpler license (like MIT -- maybe
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_w...)
and including the text directly in macros.systemd?

3. Since it conflicts with systemd, needs an explicit "Conflicts: systemd"

4. Copy in %prep stage is unnecessary (and in fact since you refer to
%{SOURCE0} directly later, it's not even doing anything

5. In %install stage, I think the big mkdir would be much easier to read and
maintain in 
   a loop, like:

for dir in systemd/system systemd/user tmpfiles.d sysctl.d modules-load.d
binfmt.d udev/rules.d
do
  mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/${dir}
done

for dir in system-generators user-generators system-preset user-preset
system-shutdown system-sleep catalog ntp-units.d
do
  mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/systemd/${dir}
done

for dir in tmpfiles.d sysctl.d sysctl.d modules-load.d binfmt.d
do
  mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/${dir}
done

mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/systemd 
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pkgconfig
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_localstatedir}/lib/systemd/catalog

That's your call, but I think we'll be happier later. :)

An alternate approach would be to make a source tarball containing all of these
directories (along with the macro file), and just unpack it.

6. Can we get away with making this noarch?

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #3 from Václav Pavlín  ---
Thanks very much for your input, Matt!

I've updated spec and macro files to follow your suggestions.

See http://vpavlin.fedorapeople.org/fakesystemd/

Regards,
Vaclav

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Michal Sekletar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #4 from Michal Sekletar  ---
(In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #1)
> > If possible, it shouldn't be shipped in primary repo and should be available only for building (Docker) images.
>
> That's not currently possible. Maybe in the future. We'll need to do some
> sanity checking to make sure no installs pull this in instead of the real
> systemd by accident.

I'd like to know more about how exactly are we going to enforce that no one
accidentally installs fakesystemd.

I want to start working on minimal systemd to be used for multi app containers.
Very similar to systemd-container we have in RHEL7. It will able to boot up
little else than container, hence we don't want users to install it on real
machine by mistake.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #5 from Matthew Miller  ---
So, the theory is: put systemd in the @core group so that it's picked by
default, not pulled in by deps. Once it's there, the Conflicts will keep anyone
from adding fakesystemd by accident, and the protected packages feature of yum
(and now DNF) will keep real systemd from being removed.

That's the theory, at least. :)

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #6 from Václav Pavlín  ---
FYI, systemd is in @core since F14 (see
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/comps.git/commit/?id=4e79f60c30b1cb6db55b1...)

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Matthew Miller  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Matthew Miller  ---
Looks good. Conflicts with systemd on my laptop and does not install, so that's
good. :)

Review passed. Obviously contains directories owned by other packages, but
that's kind of the point..

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Václav Pavlín  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #8 from Václav Pavlín  ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: fakesystemd
Short Description: Docker-specific package to simulate systemd presence in
system
Upstream URL: None
Owners: vpavlin
Branches: f20 f21
InitialCC: vpavlin

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
WARNING: Upstream URL seems to be invalid

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Jon Ciesla  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-cvs?                 |

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #10 from Matthew Miller  ---
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #9)
> WARNING: Upstream URL seems to be invalid

Yes, there is no upstream here (or, really, source); this is a stub package.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Václav Pavlín  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-cvs?

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Then it would seem that the upstream is Fedora, you could use
http://fedoraproject.org or something.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Jon Ciesla  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-cvs?                 |

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Václav Pavlín  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #12 from Václav Pavlín  ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: fakesystemd
Short Description: Docker-specific package to simulate systemd presence in
system
Upstream URL: http://fedoraproject.org
Owners: vpavlin
Branches: f20 f21
InitialCC: vpavlin

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Jon Ciesla  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Tobias Florek  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #14 from Tobias Florek  ---
What's the status? Shouldn't that package show up at one point?

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
No, please kill the package instead.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #16 from Tobias Florek  ---
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #17 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Afaik, this package was causing more problems then it was solving, and that's
why it was never built and submitted as an update. If that is true, it would be
best to clearly kill the package (make it a dead package).

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Jan Pazdziora  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail],
                   |                            |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |needinfo?([e-mail]
                   |                            |m)

--- Comment #18 from Jan Pazdziora  ---
Václav,

can this bugzilla be closed and
https://github.com/fedora-cloud/docker-brew-fedora/blob/master/fedora-docker...
purged since I believe fakesystemd was made obsolete by systemd-container which
was made obsolete by recent changes in systemd?

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Yaakov Selkowitz  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #19 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #17)
> Afaik, this package was causing more problems then it was solving, and
> that's why it was never built and submitted as an update. If that is true,
> it would be best to clearly kill the package (make it a dead package).

Could you specify?  I believe this would still be useful as systemd and its
dependencies still take up a lot of space (~16%) in a docker base image for
seemingly no reason.

As for how to handle the Conflicts, I think we can use coreutils-single as a
model.  Based on that, systemd should:

Conflicts: fakesystemd
Obsoletes: fakesystemd

and then fakesystemd should:

Provides: systemd

If that is done, does that solve whatever problems there were?

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Yaakov Selkowitz  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |1323209 (base-minimization)

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323209
[Bug 1323209] [TRACKER] base minimization effort

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Harald Hoyer  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #20 from Harald Hoyer  ---
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #19)
> (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #17)
> > Afaik, this package was causing more problems then it was solving, and
> > that's why it was never built and submitted as an update. If that is true,
> > it would be best to clearly kill the package (make it a dead package).
>
> Could you specify?  I believe this would still be useful as systemd and its
> dependencies still take up a lot of space (~16%) in a docker base image for
> seemingly no reason.
>
> As for how to handle the Conflicts, I think we can use coreutils-single as a
> model.  Based on that, systemd should:
>
> Conflicts: fakesystemd
> Obsoletes: fakesystemd
>
> and then fakesystemd should:
>
> Provides: systemd
>
> If that is done, does that solve whatever problems there were?

I would rather go down the road and create an opt-in scheme, where packages
remove the
%systemd_requires 
macro, if the package is able to run without systemd.

The systemd_{post,preun} macros don't fail, if anything goes wrong.

E.g. packages, which rely on %sysusers_create would probably not work.

Or if packages rely on a systemd API/ABI/functionality.

Please let it be an opt-in, rather than a magic fakesystemd package, where
support tickets will be opened, because the package doesn't work as advertised,
because it really needs a functional systemd.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #21 from Harald Hoyer  ---
(In reply to Harald Hoyer from comment #20)
> (In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #17)
> > > Afaik, this package was causing more problems then it was solving, and
> > > that's why it was never built and submitted as an update. If that is true,
> > > it would be best to clearly kill the package (make it a dead package).
> >
> > Could you specify?  I believe this would still be useful as systemd and its
> > dependencies still take up a lot of space (~16%) in a docker base image for
> > seemingly no reason.
> >
> > As for how to handle the Conflicts, I think we can use coreutils-single as a
> > model.  Based on that, systemd should:
> >
> > Conflicts: fakesystemd
> > Obsoletes: fakesystemd
> >
> > and then fakesystemd should:
> >
> > Provides: systemd
> >
> > If that is done, does that solve whatever problems there were?
>
> I would rather go down the road and create an opt-in scheme, where packages
> remove the
> %systemd_requires 
> macro, if the package is able to run without systemd.

Requires(post): systemd
Requires(preun): systemd
Requires(postun): systemd

would become

Recommends: systemd
OrderWithRequires(post): systemd
OrderWithRequires(preun): systemd
OrderWithRequires(postun): systemd
> The systemd_{post,preun} macros don't fail, if anything goes wrong.
>
> E.g. packages, which rely on %sysusers_create would probably not work.
>
> Or if packages rely on a systemd API/ABI/functionality.
>
> Please let it be an opt-in, rather than a magic fakesystemd package, where
> support tickets will be opened, because the package doesn't work as
> advertised, because it really needs a functional systemd.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #22 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Harald Hoyer from comment #21)
> (In reply to Harald Hoyer from comment #20)
> > I would rather go down the road and create an opt-in scheme, where packages
> > remove the
> > %systemd_requires 
> > macro, if the package is able to run without systemd.
>
> Requires(post): systemd
> Requires(preun): systemd
> Requires(postun): systemd
>
> would become
>
> Recommends: systemd
> OrderWithRequires(post): systemd
> OrderWithRequires(preun): systemd
> OrderWithRequires(postun): systemd

That may very well be a better approach overall, but I'm not sure about the
Recommends:, I think Suggests: or nothing at all would make more sense in at
least some cases.

What that does require is for systemd to handle all previously installed (but
deferred) presets in %post [ $1 == 1 ].  How exactly?

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?([e-mail] |
                   |m)                          |

--- Comment #23 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> What that does require is for systemd to handle all previously installed (but
> deferred) presets in %post [ $1 == 1 ].  How exactly?

We could add 'if[ $1 == 1 ]; then systemctl preset-all; fi', which would call
presets for all packages that were installed previously. Unfortunately it would
also undo any enablement/disablement that was done previously. We don't keep
any state that would tell us for which packages systemd preset should be
called, instead every package does the call itself on initial install.

But it'd be really unexpected to have a normal system without systemd installed
in the initial transaction, so maybe that's OK. We'd have to document the fact
that initial installation of systemd removes unit enablement configuration.

We already call 'udevadm hwdb --update' and 'journalctl --update-catalog' and
'systemd-tmpfiles --create' in systemd %post, so other calls to systemd
functionality that happen in package scriptlets should be covered.

(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #22)
> > Recommends: systemd
> > OrderWithRequires(post): systemd
> > OrderWithRequires(preun): systemd
> > OrderWithRequires(postun): systemd

I'd rather turn this into another macro (%systemd_ordering ?).
> That may very well be a better approach overall, but I'm not sure about the
> Recommends:, I think Suggests: or nothing at all would make more sense in at
> least some cases.

Either would work. Recommends is likely to be ignored when creating a minimal
image anyway. But Recommends has the advantage that systemd would be pulled in
when creating a chroot with dnf.

PS.
I'll remove needinfo, because Vaclav retired the package in pkgdb last year.
Let's keep the bug open for discussion.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #24 from Harald Hoyer  ---
I would not support to install systemd in post. Either it's there from the
beginning or not.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Harald Hoyer  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|[e-mail]           |

--- Comment #24 from Harald Hoyer  ---
I would not support to install systemd in post. Either it's there from the
beginning or not.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #25 from Harald Hoyer  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #23)
> > > Recommends: systemd
> > > OrderWithRequires(post): systemd
> > > OrderWithRequires(preun): systemd
> > > OrderWithRequires(postun): systemd
>
> I'd rather turn this into another macro (%systemd_ordering ?).

%systemd_recommends could hold all of the above.

Another approach would be:

Requires: systemd
%systemd_ordering

and

Recommends: systemd
%systemd_ordering

because the ordering works in both scenarios.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #26 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
I think the macro should contain the whole thing, to make it as simple to use
as possible. But that's a detail that can be worked out later.

The changes required are trivial to implement, just a few lines in
systemd.macros. We can just add it and allow people to use it, but the FPC
should probably update the guidelines to mention the new macro.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #27 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #26)
> I think the macro should contain the whole thing, to make it as simple to
> use as possible. But that's a detail that can be worked out later.

I'm still not convinced of the need for even Recommends: systemd here.  Compare
the desktop-database, mimeinfo, and icon-cache scriptlets, which explicitly do
NOT mandate any Requires:.  I believe this is the same: if systemd is already
present, then the scriptlets will succeed, otherwise they are ignored.  Only
packages which are completely useless outside of systemd should then use
%systemd_requires.
> The changes required are trivial to implement, just a few lines in
> systemd.macros. We can just add it and allow people to use it, but the FPC
> should probably update the guidelines to mention the new macro.

Yes, this should go through FPC once we have some agreement on the above.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Yaakov Selkowitz  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo?([e-mail]
                   |                            |)

--- Comment #28 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
What more is needed to move this forward?

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Yaakov Selkowitz  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |needinfo?([e-mail]
                   |                            |)

--- Comment #29 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
Harald, can we get this going?

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #30 from Jan Pazdziora  ---
Is the a plan in place to change the Fedora base image to drop systemd and
carry fakesystemd?

If there is one, could some links to where this change is being proposed and
discussed be added here?

If there is not and base images will always carry systemd, I wonder what the
purpose and expected use of fakesystemd would be. The images would already have
systemd in them, and even if layered images replaced it with fakesystemd, users
would still have to get the base image which had it, killing the whole purpose.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #31 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #30)
> Is the a plan in place to change the Fedora base image to drop systemd and
> carry fakesystemd?

No, the plan currently being discussed is for the Docker base image to simply
drop systemd by making sure nothing pulls it in as a dependency unless it
*really* needs it.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #32 from Jan Pazdziora  ---
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #31)
> No, the plan currently being discussed is for the Docker base image to
> simply drop systemd by making sure nothing pulls it in as a dependency
> unless it *really* needs it.

Could you please add link to where this discussion is taking place?

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #33 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #30)
> Is the a plan in place to change the Fedora base image to drop systemd and
> carry fakesystemd?

No; see above starting at comment 20 for the current plan.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Brendan Conoboy  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
              Flags|needinfo?([e-mail] |needinfo?([e-mail]
                   |)                           |)

--- Comment #34 from Brendan Conoboy  ---
Updating needinfo with Harald's correct email address.

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Harald Hoyer  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?([e-mail] |
                   |)                           |
                   |needinfo?([e-mail] |
                   |)                           |

--- Comment #35 from Harald Hoyer  ---
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/3776

[Bug 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Harald Hoyer  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Doc Type|Bug Fix                     |Enhancement

--- Comment #36 from Harald Hoyer  ---
Maybe we can add a check in the %pre macro of systemd, which recognizes already
populated /lib/systemd/system or /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d and prints out a big fat
warning on first installation.

So, here is my recommendation for the package guidelines:

If a package is suitable for an alternative init system or e.g. container
image, and does not require any of the systemd mechanisms e.g. to install UID,
GID, or tmpfiles, it can choose to use the %systemd_ordering macro instead of
the %systemd_requires macro. Adding "Recommends: systemd" or "Suggests:
systemd" is optional.

Note: installing systemd afterwards in a separate rpm transaction does not
produce the same result.

[Bug 1118740] Remove the hard dependency on systemd for packages, which make use of systemd rpm macros

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Harald Hoyer  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Review Request: fakesystemd |Remove the hard dependency
                   |- Minimal docker-specific   |on systemd for packages,
                   |package to satisfy systemd  |which make use of systemd
                   |Provides                    |rpm macros

[Bug 1118740] Remove the hard dependency on systemd for packages, which make use of systemd rpm macros

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #37 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
Policy guideline discussion: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/644

[Bug 1118740] Remove the hard dependency on systemd for packages, which make use of systemd rpm macros

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

--- Comment #38 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Harald Hoyer from comment #36)
> Note: installing systemd afterwards in a separate rpm transaction does not
> produce the same result.

What about the proposal in comment 23 wrt handling pre-installed presets in
%post if [ $1 == 1 ]?

[Bug 1118740] Remove the hard dependency on systemd for packages, which make use of systemd rpm macros

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |POST

--- Comment #39 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
OK, let's see how that works out in real life.

Implemented in
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/systemd.git/commit/?id=46083abe1a4de...,
but I didn't rebuild.

[Bug 1118740] Remove the hard dependency on systemd for packages, which make use of systemd rpm macros

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |systemd-231-2.fc25.x86_64
         Resolution|---                         |RAWHIDE
        Last Closed|                            |2016-07-26 22:47:28

[Bug 1118740] Remove the hard dependency on systemd for packages, which make use of systemd rpm macros

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Adam Williamson  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         Resolution|RAWHIDE                     |---
           Keywords|                            |Reopened

--- Comment #40 from Adam Williamson  ---
Sorry, but it...doesn't work well. At all. preset-all doesn't really work
right.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363858

I am going to revert the change in the systemd package for now since it broke
tty1 and thus broke all openQA tests.

[Bug 1118740] Remove the hard dependency on systemd for packages, which make use of systemd rpm macros

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Adam Williamson  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://bugzilla.redhat.com
                   |                            |/show_bug.cgi?id=1363858

[Bug 1118740] Remove the hard dependency on systemd for packages, which make use of systemd rpm macros

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740

Adam Williamson  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |RAWHIDE
        Last Closed|2016-07-26 22:47:28         |2018-11-08 19:43:17

--- Comment #41 from Adam Williamson  ---
I've just reapplied the change from #c23 in Rawhide, because it should help
with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647172 . So we can close this
as FIXED again, I guess! Even though I don't really remember what the change
was even supposed to help with...

preset-all got fixed up upstream, so the problems from 1363858 should not
happen again.