Bug#1141909: tech-ctte: dh_installtmpfiles-generated dependencies

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:45:14PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Is my understanding correct that you are saying that while tmpfiles 
> might become part of the (transitive) essential set that is always 
> installed, we would still need package dependencies for ensuring
> the correct order of package configuration during upgrades?

Probably. It depends on the exact sequence of events. In principle, some
essential package could now depend on systemd-tmpfiles. Then once forky
is released, packages could start relying on it being there. I very much
expect that we want forky packages to be able to rely on
systemd-tmpfiles. Those packages cannot assume systemd-tmpfiles
presence, because the package depending on systemd-tmpfiles might be
upgraded later. So all packages that want to rely on systemd-tmpfiles in
forky must carry the dependency.

> This would rule out my [A] option, since the dependency would exist
> also in "no init" situations.[1]

We could still get A for duke without additional dependencies, but for
forky I am inclined to agree.

Helmut