[systemd-devel] Splitting sd-boot from systemd/bootctl for enabling sd-boot in Fedora

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:46 AM Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 11:26 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:13 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > <zbyszek at in.waw.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:31:10AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 7:41 AM Lennart Poettering
> > > > > > Realistically, I think if we want to make movement on making
> > > > > > systemd-boot fully supported in Fedora, the systemd-boot boot manager
> > > > > > code itself should be split out into its own repository with its own
> > > > > > release cadence, while bootctl(1) and related infrastructure remains
> > > > > > in the systemd source tree and evolves to be able to manage arbitrary
> > > > > > BLS-conformant boot managers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why though? I don't follow? as long as we provide you with a tarball
> > > > > you can build your stuff from it shouldn't really matter if there's
> > > > > more stuff in it you are not immediately interested in.
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean, if you like I could do a "cp systemd-251.tar.gz
> > > > > systemd-boot-251.tar.gz" for you if you want two tarballs instead of
> > > > > one, but I don't see the point?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As I illustrated in another email[5], decoupling the lifecycle of the
> > > > EFI boot manager code from the rest of systemd would be ideal to not
> > > > make the constraints around building sd-boot with secure boot support
> > > > painful.
> > > >
> > > > [5]: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2022-April/047801.html
> > >
> > > Apart from the constraint who can build official packages, is there
> > > anything else? If it's just that, that doesn't seem onerous.
> >
> > It also means Fedora CI, pull requests from contributors, and
> > releng auto-rebuilds will no longer work. Maintainers basically
> > sign-on to do all of those things manually and have to be responsive
> > for doing it. You will get FTBFS tickets every cycle because of it,
> > for example.
> >
> > Koji doesn't conceptually know the difference because there is no
> > namespacing for builders, only who is approved to build.
> >
> > (In contrast, in the Open Build Service like what Luca Boccassi was
> > talking about, packagers don't control the builds at all, so OBS only
> > has to trust itself to sign it, so everything works properly.)
>
> You could simply have a separate source RPM, no? That should be pretty
> simple, and limit the impact on team maintenance of the main source
> package?
>

Yep. I was hoping we could have the upstream sources split too, but if
we can't, then that's definitely the preferred way to go.

> (OBS is awesome :-) )
>

Indeed. I run an OBS instance for my workplace, and I've contributed
to OBS over the years. It has its warts, but I think it got more
right than wrong in the philosophy of a build system.



--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!