Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:19:14
Message-Id: 518A8901.6030302@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users by "Michał Górny"
1 On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
3 > Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> wrote:
6 >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
7 >>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
8 >>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
9 >>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to
10 >>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after
11 >>> all).
12 >>
13 >> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd
14 >> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which
15 >> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I
16 >> would think it is better to add them to a separate systemd-units
17 >> package.
18 >
19 > How would that package handle unit files differing per package
20 > versions? For example, changed options, relocated executables...
21
22 It would effectively need to be bumped every time any package added,
23 removed or changed a unit file requirement. Also every time a unit
24 file-bearing package is added or removed from tree.
25
26 That would be one insanely hot package.

Attachments

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

Replies