Le samedi, 4 janvier 2014, 19.10:21 Josh Triplett a écrit : > Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > Rejections on mailinglists and else where to split: > > /lib/systemd/systemd-multi-seat-x > > /lib/systemd/systemd-timedated > > /lib/systemd/systemd-localed > > /lib/systemd/systemd-logind > > /lib/systemd/systemd-hostnamed > > > > from systemd package to individual packages binary packages, or at > > least together but separate from systemd-init. > > Based on the most recent mailing list discussions, it sounds like the > concern there is not "whether to split" but "who will do the work of > maintaining the patches needed to make these run without systemd", > since there's no point in splitting them otherwise. I think splitting these in different binary packages would make some sense anyway, even without them being ready to work without systemd (given that the reverse is true; that systemd works without each of them): it would allow packages (functionally) depending on a particular systemd interface (such as -logind, or -hostnamed, etc) to (packaging- wise) depend on the exact packages providing these, bringing more granularity and clarity to the "$package depends on systemd" by expressing which interfaces are concretely needed for each package. ( Then, until these are made to work without systemd, they would of course depend on the systemd package. This would also only bring on people's systems the systemd sub-parts that are actually needed for their setup. ) What I don't know is whether systemd is ready (or can easily be made ready) to work without some of these services. Cheers, OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.