Comment # 21 on bug 1071224 from Thorsten Kukuk

(In reply to Franck Bui from comment #20)
> (In reply to Thorsten Kukuk from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Franck Bui from comment #18)
> > 
> > > So the only safe way I can see would be to mask the unit by default during
> > > the installation if no entry for /tmp is created in fstab by the installer.
> > 
> > We have many installation ways and methods, and also upgrade has to work.
> 
> Updates of systemd package would take care of this.

But not fresh installations not done by YaST2, which are the majority of our
non-openSUSE installations.

> > Yes, there is the risk to break very few installations, but I really doubt
> > that people outside there use it, since we remove it if not activated. So
> > how should an user ever activate it, if it is already removed at that point
> > in time?
> 
> I don't agree with this and I'm wondering how you did figure out that few
> users are using tmpfs. Actually I'm using tmpfs on /tmp.

But only either because you enabled it with a broken systemd package or by
copying the file to /usr/lib/systemd/system/..., which was wrong, because you
should have copied to /etc/systemd/...
If you install systemd, the tmp.mount is immediately deleted during the install
process, so as normal openSUSE or SLE user, you cannot enable it because it is
already deleted.
If you copy it correctly to /etc/systemd/... yourself, the removal of the file
from systemd package will not break your system.

> And even if that would be true, breaking (voluntarily) user systems is a bad
> choice.

The systems are not broken, you only don't use tmpfs anymore for /tmp.

But it's still better that a few customers suffer than all customers by not
beeing able to update systemd via delta-RPMs and by having warnings in their
monitoring tools since rpm -Va reports missing files.