This adds support for parsing static UIDs and GIDs from sysusers.d
fragments, and automatically forwarding them to the generated
'Provides' entries.
It will allow inspecting users/groups with static IDs directly
from package metadata:
```
$ rpm --query --provides --package gdm-41.0-3.fc36.x86_64.rpm
[...]
group(gdm) = 42
user(gdm) = 42
```
If /etc/resolv.conf pointed to systemd-resolved stub configuration, it
is obvious it would stop working. Compensate it by deleting the link, it
would be created again on installation. Try to pass ownership to NM,
which also provides similar file. Keep it missing otherwise, might be
created by unknown tool on reboot.
Signed-off-by: Petr Menšík <pemensik@redhat.com>
Move systemd-resolved daemon and related tools to its own subpackage.
Keep only nss-resolve in systemd, the service itself is moved to
subpackage. It has quite different functionality than systemd package
and deserves own package.
Still recommend resolved from main package
Keep backward compatibility and still recommend systemd-resolved. Allow
removal, but would be installed by default.
This allows a fairly big dependency chain to be pruned in the future,
now other packages pull in setup:
/usr/bin/groupadd → shadow-utils → setup.
It seems we don't need the setup rpm for anything in minimal installations.
There should be no functional change. Testing will be prudent.
systemd-rpm-macros is small, but it pulls in bash and is always one more package.
It is only useful if the rpm building utilities are there, so let's conditionalize
on that.
This is in preparation for https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/pull-request/52,
splitting out systemd-resolved subpackage. The new package should
be pulled in by comps, but this would create a "flag day", because
the systemd-resolved name is currently unknown. So let's add the
virtual Provides now. Even if the package is never split out, it doesn't
cause any harm.
systemd-cryptsetup and systemd-veritysetup link with libcryptsetup, so
this dependency is already in Requires. (Well, not in bootstrap mode,
but I'm pretty sure we don't want to publish rpms built in bootstrap
mode, so it shouldn't matter.)
