1 |
On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 11:16 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:46 AM David Seifert <soap@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > Let assume the counterfactual for a moment here: We retained the |
5 |
> > USE=systemd flag for all unit files and what not, so people can |
6 |
> > cleanse |
7 |
> > themselves of the systemd units etc. without resorting to |
8 |
> > INSTALL_MASK. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > How would USE=-systemd have prevented this situation? USE=-systemd |
11 |
> > would |
12 |
> > randomly mv and sed random files so the "systemd-" prefix doesn't show |
13 |
> > up? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> So, I think using USE=systemd to control installing units is a bad |
16 |
> idea, for the same reason that it is a bad idea for controlling init.d |
17 |
> scripts. It results in users having to rebuild half their system just |
18 |
> to get those files installed if they later need them. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> However, the argument would be that if we had used USE=systemd to |
21 |
> control installing units, then users wouldn't set an INSTALL_MASK, and |
22 |
> thus when udev comes along it would still install everything just |
23 |
> fine. I doubt we'd have it rename anything - the systemd- prefix |
24 |
> would still apply, but since there are no INSTALL_MASKs then it |
25 |
> wouldn't cause any issues. The issue isn't systemd in the |
26 |
> filenames/paths, but users attempts to keep things from being |
27 |
> installed with those names/paths. |
28 |
|
29 |
Where did we ever recommend that in an official capacity? I recall |
30 |
people saying this off-the-record on IRC ("...then use INSTALL_MASK if |
31 |
you have to remove the units"), but removing any kind of file from the |
32 |
image has a likelihood of breaking something, hence I can't imagine us |
33 |
recommending this in the handbook or on OFFICIAL wiki pages. |
34 |
|
35 |
Anyhow, that ship has already sailed ages ago with sys-auth/elogind: |
36 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/758632 |