>> > Systemd contains many binaries and depends on a fairly large number of >> > libraries. Packages which carry systemd units currently have to depend >> > on >> > systemd (through %post, %preun, %postun macros used to install and >> > uninstall >> > systemd units), which grows the dependency tree and increases the size >> > of >> > minimal installs. >> > >> > With this proposal systemd-units subpackages will be split out again: >> > systemd-units >> >> Really not a fan of this, but you are proposing here to reintroduce a >> "-units" package again, and it will container directories and >> binaries, but no actual units? Did I get that right? >> >> Like Kay I think a "systemd-filesystem.rpm" that owns the dirs would >> be a better idea... In particular as the systemctl invocations are all >> suffixed with "|| : > /dev/null 2> /dev/null" (at least the ones done >> via our macros), and hence should become NOPs if systemd itself is >> missing... >> > systemd-filesystem sounds like a good idea. As for this proposal -- while it > might reduce the size of the buildroot used to build packages depending on > systemd-related macros, what would the effect be on minimal installs -- > don't they include systemd anyway? I agree on the systemd-filesystem side of things, the binaries sounds like it would be better described as systemd-utils with a provides for -units. I don't believe you necessarily need systemd in some container situations so possibly that's what's being looked at. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
