On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:35:39 +0100 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:41:45AM +0000, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On 2015-03-04, Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > * #615 Strategy for services that do not have systemd native unit > > > files (ajax, 18:03:09) > > > * AGREED: drop sysvinit subpackages if a systemd unit file > > > exists, in f23 (ajax, 18:17:32) > > > * AGREED: drop sysvinit subpackages if a systemd unit file > > > exists, in f23 (ajax, 18:18:00) > > > * ACTION: ajax to prune sysvinit subpackages in f23 (ajax, > > > 18:22:03) > > > > > What? The topic was "services that do not have systemd native unit > > files" but the decision was on "subpackages if a systemd unit file > > exists"? > > > > In other words, the decision was about completly different set of > > packages? This was mostly just an artifact of that ticket being filed 4 years ago, and fesco was mostly talking about the most recent actual proposal ( https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/615#comment:43 ) > Yes, but this decision makes sense imho. The way I understand FESCo > members' reasoning is: > > 1. dropping sysinit support in packages *with* systemd unit files is > the first step. > 2. it is too late to do anything for F22 anyway, and after 1. is done, > the issue can be revisited for packages *without* direct systemd > support. Yeah. Speaking only for myself: * I think we should continue to encourage maintainers and upstreams to move to systemd native unit files wherever possible. * I don't think we should as a policy drop or remove packages that have not yet done so. kevin
pgp7hjS6DZa9r.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
