On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:18:57 -0400 Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800 > > Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani <lx...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd > >>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about > >>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm). > >>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to > >>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after > >>> all). > >> > >> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd > >> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which > >> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I > >> would think it is better to add them to a separate systemd-units > >> package. > > > > How would that package handle unit files differing per package > > versions? For example, changed options, relocated executables... > > It would effectively need to be bumped every time any package added, > removed or changed a unit file requirement. Also every time a unit > file-bearing package is added or removed from tree. > > That would be one insanely hot package. Please note that stable & unstable versions of packages may require different units. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
