On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:37:34AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:41:53AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> I agree on the systemd-filesystem side of things, the binaries sounds
> >> like it would be
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 08:07 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Which is something I find a really questionable idea btw. There's a
> lot of stuff systemd does, and it's naive to believe you can just not
> do them and get away with it in a container.
The discussion is more subtle than that - with
On Fri, 23.01.15 04:41, Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > systemd-filesystem sounds like a good idea. As for this proposal -- while it
> > might reduce the size of the buildroot used to build packages depending on
> > systemd-related macros, what would the effect be on minimal insta
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:41:53AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I agree on the systemd-filesystem side of things, the binaries sounds
>> like it would be better described as systemd-utils with a provides for
>> -units.
> Thi
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:41:53AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I agree on the systemd-filesystem side of things, the binaries sounds
> like it would be better described as systemd-utils with a provides for
> -units.
This could be a good idea, but I think that having an additional
name would caus
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:06:32AM +, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Fri Jan 23 2015 at 9:43:02 AM Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21.01.15 12:21, Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > Systemd contains many binaries and depends on a fairly large number of
> > > l
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:42:47AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 21.01.15 12:21, Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > Systemd contains many binaries and depends on a fairly large number of
> > libraries. Packages which carry systemd units currently have to depend on
> >
>> > Systemd contains many binaries and depends on a fairly large number of
>> > libraries. Packages which carry systemd units currently have to depend
>> > on
>> > systemd (through %post, %preun, %postun macros used to install and
>> > uninstall
>> > systemd units), which grows the dependency tree
On Fri Jan 23 2015 at 9:43:02 AM Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 21.01.15 12:21, Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > Systemd contains many binaries and depends on a fairly large number of
> > libraries. Packages which carry systemd units currently have to depend on
> > systemd (
On Wed, 21.01.15 12:21, Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Systemd contains many binaries and depends on a fairly large number of
> libraries. Packages which carry systemd units currently have to depend on
> systemd (through %post, %preun, %postun macros used to install and uninstall
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:17:48PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> We have been there, we merged it back for many reasons, and do not
> want to go back. This all sounds like a really bad idea and has no
> support from my side.
Duly noted :) If you have pointers for specific problems to look out
for, I'
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Systemd Package Split =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdPackageSplit
>
> Change owner(s): Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>
> Split systemd-units out of the main systemd package
>
> == Detailed D
= Proposed System Wide Change: Systemd Package Split =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdPackageSplit
Change owner(s): Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Split systemd-units out of the main systemd package
== Detailed Description ==
Systemd contains many binaries and depends on a fairly l
13 matches
Mail list logo
