On 05/08/2013 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Ben de Groot schrieb: >> 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. > > Note that a similar thing is already done with the selinux policy packages. > > Mostly the complaints against adding systemd units are that it would > unnecessarily clutter non-systemd installs. Users who complain are told > to set INSTALL_MASK but that is somewhat unwieldy. > > A separate package for the unit file would solve this problem nicely.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your average ebuild file larger than your average systemd unit file? > Another option would be to add a "dounit" command to a future EAPI (like > doinitd today) and make portage install them unless FEATURES="nounit" > (like nodoc/noinfo/noman today). I'm beginning to warm up to the idea of replacing most init scripts with systemd unit files and a unit->init converter. This is obviously nonsense if upstream provides init scripts, but I'm unsure how common that is. (or even could be)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
