| 1 |
On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:22:05 +0200 |
| 2 |
Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am Samstag, den 25.05.2013, 15:53 -0400 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: |
| 5 |
> > We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not |
| 6 |
> > providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd |
| 7 |
> > integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I |
| 8 |
> > don't know that it is a working solution yet. I have to oppose adding |
| 9 |
> > unit files unless we have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, |
| 10 |
> > regarding embedded systems where one needs to conserve space |
| 11 |
> > aggressively. And we may have found a way to do so without cluttering |
| 12 |
> > ebuilds with USE flags. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Even though I don't care about a couple of files more on my FS I would |
| 15 |
> prefer to find a solution with functions provided by PMS, not portage |
| 16 |
> alone. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
PMS doesn't cover configuration, and I feel this is mostly |
| 19 |
a configuration problem. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting |
| 22 |
> > out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I |
| 23 |
> > would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Maybe we have to find a more generic solution for this, because there is |
| 27 |
> bug #235944 [1] which request extra config snippets for rsyslog added to |
| 28 |
> various packages. Or is this something different? If yes, how? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Well, I don't know rsyslog and I have no real idea where those files |
| 31 |
end up. But if they end up in a common directory, it's exactly the kind |
| 32 |
of thing we can handle with INSTALL_MASK. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives