Re: systemd portable services vs systemd-sysext

Lennart has a good blog about this. https://0pointer.net/blog/fitting-everything-together.html

Especially the paragraph starting with: “Of course, the lines between these three types of modules are blurry, but I think distinguishing them does make sense, as I think different mechanisms are appropriate for each. So here's what I'd propose in my model to use for this.”

Thanks

Umut

From: systemd-devel <systemd-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Sopena Ballesteros Manuel <manuel.sopena@xxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, 25 January 2025 at 17:57
To: systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: systemd portable services vs systemd-sysext

Some people who received this message don't often get email from manuel.sopena@xxxxxxx. Learn why this is important

Dear systemd community,

I’m a sysadmin currently learning Linux and systemd, and I’m exploring technologies that allow me to add and remove applications to my system’s root filesystem in a plug-and-play fashion. I’m avoiding containers because I need a higher level of integration with the system, and the abstraction containers provide doesn’t align with my needs.

As I learn more about systemd, I came across systemd portable services and systemd-sysext while researching solutions to my problem. From my understanding, sysext leverages OverlayFS, while portable services seem to function more like a chroot environment with additional functionality. Although they appear to have similar use cases, I’m having trouble deciding between the two.

Could anyone provide clarification on the specific scenarios where one solution would be more appropriate than the other?

Thank you very much for your time and assistance!

Best regards,