On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 10:11:52AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Mo, 2016-03-07 at 15:56 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:21:38AM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > Does this mean we can install systemd into a base container without > > > systemd-udev? > > > And without systemd-container? > > Yep. That's more or less the point of the change. > > Plans to split out more? > > console setup comes to mind. was mentioned on the list recently that > this is quite big because it pulls in keymaps as dependency. And it's > also something you don't need in a container. > > Maybe also network (networkd/resolved) given that fedora uses > networkmanager by default. Probably hasn't a big effect on the main > package size though. The problem is that various systemd components use each other a lot, so there are various cross-dependencies, and we quickly get to the point of diminishing returns. You can see the upstream discussion [e.g. the thread around [1]]. Creating a hell of little packages does not make sense, especially considering that if you miss something you might end up with an unbootable system. Only subpackages that are a) at least a few megabytes or bring in dependencies on libraries that are not shared by the rest of systemd, b) are "leaf" components which are not required by other systemd components, are useful candidates for splitting out. So splitting out networkd would be possible, but it's smallish (<1MB) and doesn't bring in extra deps. OTOH, the console setup stuff could be a useful candidate because of deps. I have to admit I haven't looked into that. Maybe we could move the console setup stuff over to systemd-udev subpackage. You only do console setup if you have hardware (?). Zbyszek [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-November/034963.html -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
