On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:06:32AM +0000, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > On Fri Jan 23 2015 at 9:43:02 AM Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> > 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? > > > > 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? No, they don't. systemd has to be specified in BR and R. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
