1 |
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 04:15:03PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > I am sending this out for review so we can commit it to the tree |
4 |
> > when we commit our alternate systemd ebuild in a few days. This will be |
5 |
> > set up so that users can choose which systemd package they want to |
6 |
> > install, and it will default to the current systemd package. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Did I miss some kind of announcement for what is going on here? An |
9 |
> additional implementation in portage along with an eclass probably is |
10 |
> worth some kind of intro on-list. I don't think you need to seek |
11 |
> approval/etc, but it would be nice to know what your goals/etc are. |
12 |
> Is this just a different installation/configuration approach, or is |
13 |
> this some kind of upstream fork? |
14 |
|
15 |
It is not an upstream fork, it is a configuration/installation |
16 |
approach that follows upstream's recommendations for install locations. |
17 |
It also allows the user more choices wrt which parts of systemd are |
18 |
built or installed and allows more fine-grained use dependencies for |
19 |
other packages. |
20 |
|
21 |
William |