On Fri, 23.01.15 04:41, Peter Robinson (pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > 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. Which is something I find a really questionable idea btw. There's a lot of stuff systemd does, and it's naive to believe you can just not do them and get away with it in a container. Apps need APIs, and systemd provides quite a few of them, which are unavailable if you don't run systemd. But it's also mundane things like cleaning up /tmp from time to time. Or pretty much any non-trivial app probably already needs more than a single service, in which case you need service management and stuff. You can of course replicate all that in your container manager, but in that case you are not writing a container manager anymore, but a full service and system supervisor like systemd. I am pretty sure it would be good idea to emphasize the APIs Fedora offers as a system to app developers. By not providing them in a container we are certainly not making things easier for people... But anyway, I can see that people disagree with this... I am not convinced though that we should fuck up the packaging of systemd too badly, just to accomodate for broken ideas... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
