On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:42:47AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 21.01.15 12:21, Jaroslav Reznik (jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > 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? Yes. > 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... I strongly disagree with this. If the binaries are missing, then the setup done using systemd tools in rpm scriptlets would not happen. So e.g. if depending on the order of installation, systemd was installed first, systemctl preset would work, but if systemd was installed later, systemctl preset would turn into a nop. I really don't see the point of having systemd-filesystem, when almost everythin which could depend on this package, would also have to depend on systemd for the tools. > Not enthusiastic, Yeah, I see that. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
