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 |