On Wed, 11.11.15 23:09, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: > 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.
The .link files belong to udev, not networkd. It's that simple. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
