| 1 |
Ben de Groot schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd |
| 4 |
>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about |
| 5 |
>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm). |
| 6 |
>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to |
| 7 |
>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after |
| 8 |
>> all). |
| 9 |
> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd |
| 10 |
> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which |
| 11 |
> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I |
| 12 |
> would think it is better to add them to a separate systemd-units |
| 13 |
> package. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Note that a similar thing is already done with the selinux policy packages. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Mostly the complaints against adding systemd units are that it would |
| 18 |
unnecessarily clutter non-systemd installs. Users who complain are told |
| 19 |
to set INSTALL_MASK but that is somewhat unwieldy. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
A separate package for the unit file would solve this problem nicely. |
| 22 |
Another option would be to add a "dounit" command to a future EAPI (like |
| 23 |
doinitd today) and make portage install them unless FEATURES="nounit" |
| 24 |
(like nodoc/noinfo/noman today). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives