| 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. |
Archives