On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:27:33AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > > >For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current > > >"Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal image. > > > > > >To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak dependencies. > > >So the > > > > > >Requires(post): systemd > > >Requires(preun): systemd > > >Requires(postun): systemd > > > > > >would become > > > > > >Recommends: systemd > > >OrderWithRequires(post): systemd > > >OrderWithRequires(preun): systemd > > >OrderWithRequires(postun): systemd > > > > > >With this in place, kickstart files could omit systemd. > > > > > >The downside is: > > >- if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trigger > > >- packages, which need systemd-tmpfiles or systemd-sysusers could not be converted > > > > > >If systemd is removed before the other packages, I don't see a problem. > > >There are only leftovers in /etc/systemd. > > > > > >To prevent having a non-bootable system (not container), we could let the > > >kernel.spec have a Requires on systemd. > > > > > >Comments? Please discuss. > > > > I haven't seen a lot of downside brought up in this thread. If the > > only objections people have is that it doesn't facilitate their > > personal use cases those don't seem like real objections. Is > > anybody going to be really negatively impacted by such a change? > > > > For my part I'd like to see this happen, not just for packages > > requiring systemd, but for all packages where "Requires" is really > > stronger than necessary. Now that we have soft dependencies it > > would be nice to go through and move to Recommends where software > > continues to function in some reduced capacity. > > For some packages "reduced capacity" because of lack of systemd.rpm > means "doesn't even get started as expected" or "crashes on > start with permission errors" or "cannot write logs" or similar. > Like Lennart and Neil said, utilities provided by systemd.rpm are the > basis which allows many things to "just work". This is so obvious > that it is assumed implicitly in this disussion, and it's hardly > "personal use cases". > > Zbyszek I concur, this really seems like were forsaking full OS functionality to support a specific container use case, which is wrong. And the argument that its ok because the kernel will pull in systemd, while currently accurate seems like bad practice, as philisophically rpms always specify all their requires instead of assuming some other package will do it for them Neil > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
