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, b
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Vít Ondruch 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
> subpackages. Whe
ne 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 the point? I mean, systemd is not exa
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
> > shou
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 of
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 of
ackages, 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 the point? I mean, systemd is not exactly
>>> an optional pa
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 c
On 2014-08-26, José Matos 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 between TeX and Perl
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 d
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 depe
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:16:46AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, DJ Delorie 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 dire
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...
I
>> > 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 no
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Josh Boyer 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".
Excellent. Miss
Once upon a time, Josh Boyer 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
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://a
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen 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 c
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen 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 common practic
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:
ht
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 [1]
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 l
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
ying 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 the point? I mean, systemd is not exac
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
> >&g
Once upon a time, DJ Delorie 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 (more or les
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 t
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM, DJ Delorie 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 exist so
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, DJ Delorie 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
> 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
> 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 cor
gt; >>> 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...
> >>
> >> Someone has to start somewhere. It is annoying to install several
> >> packages, when you expe
>>>> 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 durin
ne 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 the point? I mean, systemd is not exa
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, t
ge, but about systemd package.
> > 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...
>
> Someone has to start somewhere. It is annoying to install several
> packages, when you expect that only
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
u expect that only one should be installed. And by
coincidence, I met several of systemd dependencies during short period
of time.
Vít
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
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
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, 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 w
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
> su
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.
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
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
