Quoting Kay Sievers (2014-12-18 15:04:22) > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 07:09:34PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >> > >> On 12/18/2014 06:44 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >> > > >> >On 12/18/2014 06:36 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >> >>You missed the part where I said "you should make it opt-in". > >> > > >> >Should we not first determine the practicality of implementing > >> >this and if the system service manager should actually be looking > >> >up this info to begin with? > >> > > >> >We could not add the ability to define the upstream homepage in > >> >the status output but we can now clutter the status output with a > >> >name of a package? > >> > >> This could be implemented without the overhead and conflict as an > >> extension to the output listed with "systemctl list-unit-files" if > >> opt-in > > That's a valid point. list-unit-files seems to be a better home > > for this. > > The systemd command line tools are not supposed to call into > higher-level daemons to query data. This sounds like the wrong way > around. It sound like someone should teach packagekit about systemd > units. > > Also, systmed does not want to get involved into any concept of > "packages". It is what distributions are made of, but this is not > systemd's task to manage of describe.
systemctl does already directly invoke man to read man pages, despite that just being one way among many to maintain documentation. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
