On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:55:36PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, Fedora is not a distribution that cares about whether it is easily
bootstrappable. It never was a goal to be one. If you want to make it
one, then that's fine, but that'd be something to make an official goal
first, by
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping into
some packages where it is not necessary. subversion [1] or rsync [2] are
good examples. Please consider moving daemon parts into independent
here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if you
want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
Someone has to start somewhere. It is annoying to install several
packages, when you expect that only one should be installed. And by
coincidence, I met several of systemd dependencies
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:38:20AM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
The reason for dependency on systemd is different: if a package carries
a systemd unit, it should usually be enabled according to presets. It
should also be cleaned up when the package is removed. This requires
a
On 2014-08-26, José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt wrote:
In my point of view the texlive split is similar to the perl-* or
python-* packages.
The reason for the split is the same---upstream develops the texlive
classes independently in separate packages and publish them on CTAN.
The difference
Dne 26.8.2014 19:12, Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
On 08/26/2014 04:59 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 26.8.2014 11:06, Michal Sekletar napsal(a):
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
Hi Vít,
Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping
into
some
, we have so many dependencies, if you
want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
Someone has to start somewhere. It is annoying to install several
packages, when you expect that only one should be installed. And by
coincidence, I met several of systemd dependencies during short
On 08/26/2014 08:15 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
What's the rationale here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if
you want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
When I bootstrapped Fedora for ARM way back when, I had to deal with
these dependencies. A lot. Finding a minimal set
On 08/26/2014 08:15 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
What's the rationale here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if
you want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
When I bootstrapped Fedora for ARM way back when, I had to deal with
these dependencies. A lot. Finding a minimal set
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:38:44AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:38:20AM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
The reason for dependency on systemd is different: if a package carries
a systemd unit, it should usually be enabled according to presets. It
should
Hi,
Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping into
some packages where it is not necessary. subversion [1] or rsync [2] are
good examples. Please consider moving daemon parts into independent
subpackages. When I install rsync/subversion, I am typically interested
just in
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
Hi Vít,
Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping into
some packages where it is not necessary. subversion [1] or rsync [2] are
good examples. Please consider moving daemon parts into independent
Dne 26.8.2014 11:06, Michal Sekletar napsal(a):
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
Hi Vít,
Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping into
some packages where it is not necessary. subversion [1] or rsync [2] are
good examples. Please
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:59:23PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 26.8.2014 11:06, Michal Sekletar napsal(a):
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
Hi Vít,
Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping into
some packages where it is not
On Tue, 26.08.14 09:32, Vít Ondruch (vondr...@redhat.com) wrote:
Hi,
Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping into
some packages where it is not necessary. subversion [1] or rsync [2] are
good examples. Please consider moving daemon parts into independent
On Tue, 26.08.14 11:06, Michal Sekletar (msekl...@redhat.com) wrote:
Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping into
some packages where it is not necessary. subversion [1] or rsync [2] are
good examples. Please consider moving daemon parts into independent
On Tue, 26.08.14 12:59, Vít Ondruch (vondr...@redhat.com) wrote:
2) sytemd should consider to provide -filesystem package, which would
limit the dependency to single small package (but this might be return
to the -units subpackage days? Not sure).
Why?
I am really against splitting things
the rationale here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if you
want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
Someone has to start somewhere. It is annoying to install several
packages, when you expect that only one should be installed. And by
coincidence, I met several of systemd dependencies
Dne 26.8.2014 13:51, Lennart Poettering napsal(a):
On Tue, 26.08.14 12:59, Vít Ondruch (vondr...@redhat.com) wrote:
2) sytemd should consider to provide -filesystem package, which would
limit the dependency to single small package (but this might be return
to the -units subpackage days? Not
, if you
want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
Someone has to start somewhere. It is annoying to install several
packages, when you expect that only one should be installed. And by
coincidence, I met several of systemd dependencies during short period
of time.
What I am
On Tue, 26.08.14 14:22, Vít Ondruch (vondr...@redhat.com) wrote:
I am really against splitting things up into a million of subpackages,
unless you have a ver good reason for a split.
I am against installing million packages when I expect one. If I saw
systemd-filesystem installed, then I
here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if you
want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
Someone has to start somewhere. It is annoying to install several
packages, when you expect that only one should be installed. And by
coincidence, I met several of systemd dependencies
. And by
coincidence, I met several of systemd dependencies during short period
of time.
What I am not getting: what's the point? I mean, systemd is not exactly
an optional package in Fedora.
You are asking people to split their packages in two, but what's the
real reason for that? If the systemd package isn't
be installed. And by
coincidence, I met several of systemd dependencies during short period
of time.
What I am not getting: what's the point? I mean, systemd is not exactly
an optional package in Fedora.
You are asking people to split their packages in two, but what's the
real reason
What's the rationale here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if
you want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
When I bootstrapped Fedora for ARM way back when, I had to deal with
these dependencies. A lot. Finding a minimal set of RPMs to
cross-compile to get a bootable core
If I saw systemd-filesystem installed, then I would think that
something needs to be placed into the systemd folder structure,
Perhaps the bug is this: that you need to install a whole other RPM
just to make a directory exist so you can put a file in it.
Why can't the RPM providing the file
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
What's the rationale here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if
you want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
When I bootstrapped Fedora for ARM way back when, I had to deal with
these dependencies. A lot.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
If I saw systemd-filesystem installed, then I would think that
something needs to be placed into the systemd folder structure,
Perhaps the bug is this: that you need to install a whole other RPM
just to make a directory
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:59:23PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
2) sytemd should consider to provide -filesystem package, which would
limit the dependency to single small package (but this might be return
to the -units subpackage days? Not sure).
The directories can probably just be added to the
Once upon a time, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com said:
Perhaps the bug is this: that you need to install a whole other RPM
just to make a directory exist so you can put a file in it.
Why can't the RPM providing the file just make the directory and not
have a dependency at all?
It used to work
to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
Someone has to start somewhere. It is annoying to install several
packages, when you expect that only one should be installed. And by
coincidence, I met several of systemd dependencies during short period
of time.
What I am not getting: what's
of systemd dependencies during short period
of time.
What I am not getting: what's the point? I mean, systemd is not exactly
an optional package in Fedora.
You are asking people to split their packages in two, but what's the
real reason for that? If the systemd package isn't optional
On Tuesday 26 August 2014 18:43:22 Lennart Poettering wrote:
Honestly, I kinda like the pragmatism on Fedora, so far, that there's
no need to split up packages into a myriad of mini packges. And I
think that texlive packaging is an absolute disaster, where things are
split up to the maximum
On Tue, 26.08.14 10:44, DJ Delorie (d...@redhat.com) wrote:
What's the rationale here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if
you want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
When I bootstrapped Fedora for ARM way back when, I had to deal with
these dependencies. A lot.
On 08/26/2014 04:59 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 26.8.2014 11:06, Michal Sekletar napsal(a):
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
Hi Vít,
Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping into
some packages where it is not necessary. subversion
On 08/26/2014 04:59 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
2) sytemd should consider to provide -filesystem package, which would
limit the dependency to single small package (but this might be return
to the -units subpackage days? Not sure).
It's not (just) filesystem ownership, it's scriptlet processing:
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com said:
So after looking at several different container images kickstarts I notice
they all seem to remove systemd as it is provided by the base systemd of
the system. I don't know if that is the correct method or not, but seems to
be the
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com said:
So after looking at several different container images kickstarts I notice
they all seem to remove systemd as it is provided by the base systemd of
the system. I
Once upon a time, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com said:
Would you be willing to craft a patch and send it to the rsync
maintainer to do that?
I believe (later in this thread) someone said that has already been
done, as rsync-daemon.
--
Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net
--
devel mailing list
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com said:
Would you be willing to craft a patch and send it to the rsync
maintainer to do that?
I believe (later in this thread) someone said that has already been
done, as
What's the rationale here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if
you want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
When I bootstrapped Fedora for ARM way back when, I had to deal with
these dependencies. A lot. Finding a minimal set of RPMs to
Well, Fedora is not a
On 2014-08-26 11:55, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, Fedora is not a distribution that cares about whether it is easily
bootstrappable. It never was a goal to be one. If you want to make it
one, then that's fine, but that'd be something to make an official goal
first, by going through FESCO...
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:16:46AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com said:
Perhaps the bug is this: that you need to install a whole other RPM
just to make a directory exist so you can put a file in it.
Why can't the RPM providing the file just make
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 07:15:46PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
What's the rationale here? I mean, we have so many dependencies, if
you want to minimize them, you have a lng way to go...
When I bootstrapped Fedora for ARM way back when, I had to deal with
these dependencies. A
44 matches
Mail list logo
