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

* Helmut Grohne <[email protected]> [260713 13:15]:
>On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 02:49:39PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 12:20:16 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
[..]

>Given the state of discussion, I am pretty sure that a virtual package
>(that has been proposed elsewhere already) is the way to go.

I'll note that it could also be a real package which is otherwise 
empty, just to hold the dependencies. This would be somewhat like 
the `init` package.

>> I'm not so sure that we really *are* adding -tmpfiles to the transitively
>> Essential set, and if we are not, then that makes Adrian's reasoning less
>> compelling.
>
>I still hope that we can get away keeping tmpfiles out of essential
>while having it in the required set (aka debootstrap variant minbase).
>
>Let me raise an argument against making it essential. Essential packages
>must work at all times in an unpacked state. It is known that packages
>that link libsystemd0 (e.g. systemd) do not always work during upgrades.
>While systemd-standalone-tmpfiles could fill the essential spot, systemd
>providing systemd-tmpfiles could not.
[..]

The systemd implementation of tmpfiles also requires /proc, which is 
less than ideal in a number of important-yet-not-default cases, for 
example chroots and (system) images currently under construction.

Best,
Chris