treewide: tmpfiles.rules -> tmpfiles.settings

[h7x4]

Description of changes

This PR rewrites the tmpfile rules to use the structured attrs variant of the tmpfiles option, for a chunk of nixos modules. The change should not have any functional effect.

Continuation #280373

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[adamcstephens]

I don’t consider this an improvement so will not approve, but won’t argue or block it as you’ve already done a batch of these.

[h7x4]

That's okay :)

The main improvement I see with this API, is that the end user can reach for an entry and edit it through the module system, if they encounter an error or unexpected/opinionated setup. Of course with a recommendation that they report an issue to nixpkgs, but without needing to mess around with disabledModules or whatnot in the meanwhile. The new API might be a bit more noisy, but I think that trade is worth it.

[Ma27]

Fwiw I have a hard time considering this an improvement as long as #295872 isn't fixed.

[h7x4]

@Ma27 I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning. Is it because more widespread of systemd.tmpfiles.settings will lead to more people looking it up, resulting in more time and confusion spent on the <name>.<name>.<name> issue by a larger amount of people?

I still think using attrs is an improvement due to ease of overriding and being able to address the option values. But I'd also be okay with drafting until the <name>.<name>.<name> issue is solved.

[Ma27]

OK context was that the change was suggested to be in line with the PR.
Revisiting this, I think this is more appropriate to point out in the original discussion, apologies!