On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
Hi,
During systemd.conf we have discussed some recommendation for
downstreams, how they could split systemd to subpackages, so lets
continue that discussion here.
Personally I don't think it makes sense to split the package to get a
smaller core package. Most of our binaries are just few KBs. Only
exception here is /usr/lib/udev/hwdb.d which, on fedora rawhide, has
about 5,2 MB (15% of the whole package).
Other aspect would be minimizing external dependencies. I have made a
list of libraries and which binaries pulls them in [1] and from that
point of view it would make sense to put follow binaries to subpackage:
systemd-pull
systemd-journal-gatewayd
systemd-journal-remote
systemd-journal-upload
systemd-firstboot
systemd-networkd
Hi Lukáš,
It seems like you're just looking at binaries at the moment, but I think
some care needs to be taken with config files too.
One gotcha I discovered in having networkd split out, and specifically in
having 99-default.link in a subpackage, is that it can change the way
predictable interface naming works, whether or not the networkd daemon is
managing network interfaces. Udev's net_setup_link builtin consults the
*.link files directly to determine the interface naming policy.
We have to make sure the mere presence or absence of an otherwise-unused
subpackage on a system doesn't change the system's behaviour too
dramatically.
- Michael
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
