Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 08.10.2015 um 17:20 schrieb Julian Andres Klode: > > 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... > > We added machinectl to the package description, so it should turn up > when running apt-cache search machinectl. We tried to do that for the > other split off package, systemd-journal-remote, as well. > > > Or have a systemd-core package containing only what's needed > > to bring up a system, and make the systemd package larger. > > We discussed that at debconf, making systemd a meta-package depending on > all sub-packages. > > This would have meant shuffling around a lot of conffiles and we were > worried a bit about the upgrade path, so we decided against it back then.
What about a systemd-all metapackage or similar, without moving anything around? It'd be nice to have a metapackage that pulls in any components split out into other packages; in particular, having that package installed would ensure that if the package gets further components split out in the future, the split-out packages will get installed too to mitigate that. I saw in the log for #744964 a mention of wanting to only go through the NEW queue once for the next round of new binary packages; would you consider adding systemd-all? - Josh Triplett _______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list Pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
