Hi Michael, On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:44:34PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Hi Guido > > Am 15.01.2018 um 12:14 schrieb Guido Günther: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:24:33AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> Am 15.01.2018 um 10:18 schrieb Guido Günther: > > >> It requires libnss-systemd, yes. Do you not have it installed? > >> It's a recommends, so should be installed by default > > > > See above: "without installing recommends". My whole point is that the > > Ok, just wanted to make 100% sure libnss-systemd was not installed. Even > with recommends disabled, it might have been installed. > > > systemd package installs a service that won't even start without the > > recommends which looks somewhat wrong to me. I would expect that > > > > systemctl list-units --failed > > > > would not contain any failed systemd units even without installing > > recommends. If you think this is all wrong free to close it. > > My first instinct was to say, if you disable recommends, then you should > know what you do and it's up to the user to deal with the results. > > Then again, systemd (or rather systemd-sysv, which recommends > libnss-systemd) is special, as it is installed by d-i at a stage where > recommends are apparently not considered yet. > I know too little about the d-i internals, but I've just tested with the > latest buster d-i daily image, and after the system installation, > libnss-systemd was indeed missing.
To me it happened with vmdeboostrap and then installing without recommends (which doesn't seem so uncommon either given the examples that float around on the net). > I vaguely remember that we had the same issue with libpam-systemd. > We wanted to make it possible to not libpam-systemd so chose a > Recommends but also noticed, that it was not installed by d-i. Which is > why we bumped the severity of libpam-systemd to standard, so it would be > installed at a later stage by the "standard" task. > > We could do the same for libnss-systemd. > But somehow I think it would be better to just bite the bullet and > upgrade it to a hard dependency. DynamicUser=yes is a feature which we > expect will be used more frequently in the future (also by other > packages) and should just work ootb imho. That would IMHO be the best solution. DynamicUser=yes is nice and if we want to use it more (maybe even in non-systemd packages) it will be pulled in anyway. > libnss-systemd doesn't pull in any additional dependencies and weighs > about 350K. > Do we have convincing use cases where it would be beneficial to not have > libnss-systemd installed? Absolutely not ;) > Thoughts? Turning it into a dependency would probably be best. It might be sufficient to have it as a dependency of systemd-sysv, not systemd itself. Cheers, -- Guido
