| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> It is not an upstream fork, it is a configuration/installation |
| 3 |
> approach that follows upstream's recommendations for install locations. |
| 4 |
> It also allows the user more choices wrt which parts of systemd are |
| 5 |
> built or installed and allows more fine-grained use dependencies for |
| 6 |
> other packages. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Thanks. Might not hurt to document somewhere (wiki/etc) so that users |
| 9 |
can make an informed choice and to understand the contrasting |
| 10 |
philosophies. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Dennis recently blogged on this topic. While cooperation should |
| 13 |
always be done when possible, if somebody really feels there is value |
| 14 |
in having an alternative I really don't see the problem. The main |
| 15 |
concern I'd have is coordination with other packages - for example I'd |
| 16 |
hate to see the unit files going into different places since that |
| 17 |
would make it impossible for other packages to determine where the |
| 18 |
user wants them (units might be installed before either implementation |
| 19 |
is installed). If conflict between alternative implementations starts |
| 20 |
creating problems for the rest of the distro then it only makes sense |
| 21 |
for the council to step in. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives