On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:55:08AM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On 7 October 2015 at 09:31, Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote: > > Afaics, that's about 200K. So yeah, I could live with having those > > shipped in the systemd package. > > > > and bootctl is useful on its > >> own, even for people not using systemd-boot (it shows the > >> boot configuration). > > > >> You could keep that in the systemd package itself, and still > >> run bootctl update in systemd's postinst script, as that does > >> no harm, it only updates existing bootloader copies in the > >> ESP (unfortunately, only one, with a fixed path, instead of > >> supporting all non-removable ESPs). > > > > I mentioned splitting of systemd-boot since that is what I recalled when > > we spoke about that at debconf. You mentioned some additional scripts > > you wrote for gummiboot and that those should not be shipped in the > > systemd binary package. > > 200k here and there end up adding up. Was there talk about splitting > up the existing systemd package up so that minimal images can be > (more) minimal? > In particular, I'm thinking about stuff not needed on containers, so > that the base system image size can be minimized. >
That's a sort of valid argument. Although this whole splitting up is a bit annoying me: I'm wondering if it makes sense to have some sort of systemd meta package. I recently wondered very long where machinectl was when I wanted to try machinectl shell... Or have a systemd-core package containing only what's needed to bring up a system, and make the systemd package larger. -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. Be friendly, do not top-post, and follow RFC 1855 "Netiquette". - If you don't I might ignore you. _______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list Pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
