On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:09, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> wrote: > Le lundi 04 juillet 2011 à 19:28 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit : >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 14:57, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Le lundi 04 juillet 2011 à 14:53 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit : >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 14:10, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > (this macro could refer to different package, if people don't agree on >> >> > systemd-units as packagename) >> >> >> >> I don't agree on the split-off in general. :) >> >> >> >> I don't really see how a subpackage gives us any advantage, and we >> >> should not recommend its use, I think. >> > >> > In that case, I suggest we keep the macro name in the proposal (because >> > we want other packages to requires "some" systemd package in their >> > specfile, but the content of the macro can change in distributions. >> >> What's the point of having "some" sub-package at all? I guess, stuff >> should just depend on systemd.rpm instead of making it all needlessly >> complicated. Or should I package udev-rules.rpm next? :) > > Please re-read what I wrote :
Nice hint. :) > the point is to have a common macro which would allow packagers to > ensure they don't forget anything. The name of the package pulled by > this macro is not relevant. Yeah, and again, it's just 'Requires: systemd', and I think no need to play distro-package indirection/abstraction games here. Thanks, Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
