Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: David Seifert <soap@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:27:33
Message-Id: 8bc70941ec58f0152709a5e128ac7fd88e884e9c.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation by Rich Freeman
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