-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 08/05/13 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani <lx...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> This sounds really wrong (tm) to me. It took me two weeks to kill >> that silly systemd-units pkg. All the distros around here do >> install systemd units with their packages and I believe that the >> council has already spoken about this. > > It sounds more wrong to me to be asking normal package maintainers > to test and maintain unit files, while they don't use systemd > themselves, nor have it installed. Nor would most of our users need > this.
I am generally in agreement with this. If the systemd unit file is provided by upstream, then i think it's absolutely reasonable for the gentoo dev to be expected to package it along with everything else, however if the systemd unit file is NOT included from upstream, and the gentoo dev doesn't have any experience with systemd nor any test bed to maintain the script, then expecting or requiring them to include it is not reasonable to me imo. If they optionally want to anyways, of course, more power to them, and there's probably no reason not to have a bug filed about it (at say, the 'enhancement' level). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlGKfO8ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPD7UgEAhPnkxm465nrnLrm/rbaYp7l2 Mk2OZic0KCmar9Ro82cA/RyUTF7OnnTAPON2/AregSm2Ut9VtQqex6C1qjvrjR2u =Wv/H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
