Comment 44 for bug 1913421

>> I knew and can understand that you like the tmpfiles.d approach more

> to clarify, that isn't the approach i suggested in comment 41

Indeed, but I thought my full answer also covered why:
 "... throw in a check for 'noexec' in the postinst and actually do a quick manual tmpfs
 mount without noexec at /run/qemu (or some subdir) if needed ..."
also isn't an approach that seem applicable.

As I explained in the discussions I had it came up that it lacks the transparency a user usually expects.
- Why is this MP there but I can't find it in systemd where I find everything else?
- What about error propagation, the mount unit is an entity everyone knows how to handle
  but in the prerm any errors will just be washed away on updates (we can't make them fatal
  as breaking updates isn't nice either)

I mean I admire the simplicity (especially since - as my backports show - mount unit handling in dh* tools differ from release to release) and if a 3rd or 4rth party review turns out to tell me I'm the only one thinking "create tmpfs in prerm is bad/unwanted" then I'm not even against it and would be happy to rewrite the MPs.

I need to re-ping the SRU Team (for an SRU opinion pre-review before we hit -unapproved).