Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: mikemol@×××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:32:57
Message-Id: 20130508193255.088c499b@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users by Michael Mol
1 On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:18:57 -0400
2 Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
5 > > On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
6 > > Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
7 > >
8 > >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> wrote:
9 > >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
10 > >>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
11 > >>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
12 > >>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to
13 > >>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after
14 > >>> all).
15 > >>
16 > >> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd
17 > >> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which
18 > >> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I
19 > >> would think it is better to add them to a separate systemd-units
20 > >> package.
21 > >
22 > > How would that package handle unit files differing per package
23 > > versions? For example, changed options, relocated executables...
24 >
25 > It would effectively need to be bumped every time any package added,
26 > removed or changed a unit file requirement. Also every time a unit
27 > file-bearing package is added or removed from tree.
28 >
29 > That would be one insanely hot package.
30
31 Please note that stable & unstable versions of packages may require
32 different units.
33
34 --
35 Best regards,
36 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature