On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:41:53AM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: >> 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. > This could be a good idea, but I think that having an additional > name would cause more confusion. The name is arbitrary anyway. Sure, put all the interesting tools in a -utils rpm. Oh, wait, we already have that, it is called systemd.rpm. :) I really do not want to see this broken package-split being implemented. The core systemd is not supposed to be separated into different packages. Things have complex inter-dependencies, they change all the time and they move around. Splitting them will just create a mess, for no apparent reason than optimizing some misguided space-saving efforts. We really have more important problems to solve than making the already far to complex package management even worse, and without any obvious benefit. Please just drop the entire proposal. Thanks, Kay -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
