On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 8 May 2013 23:39, Fabio Erculiani <lx...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani <lx...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd >>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about >>>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm). >>>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to >>>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after >>>> all). >>> >>> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd >>> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which >>> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I >> >>> would think it is better to add them to a separate systemd-units >>> package. >> >> This sounds really wrong (tm) to me. It took me two weeks to kill that >> silly systemd-units pkg. >> All the distros around here do install systemd units with their >> packages and I believe that the council has already spoken about this. > > It sounds more wrong to me to be asking normal package maintainers to > test and maintain unit files, while they don't use systemd themselves, > nor have it installed. Nor would most of our users need this.
I don't think we are actually asking you to test/maintain them; you can treat them as a request for permission to perform a non-maintainer commit. If users run into problems, please feel free to copy/assign us on bugs. > And I believe the council has only spoken out against using a useflag > for installing such files. Afaik they haven't spoken out against a > systemd-units package. Please refer me to their decision if I'm wrong. > Having a package to install every systemd unit in existence just clutters the end user's system and makes it harder to tell which units are actually valid. Also, if a unit needs to be updated between versions of a given package, that will lead to some strange looking deps. A potential alternative would be to have a separate systemd-unit package for each package in the tree, but that just seems like overkill to me for a set of very small text files. And it still means adding an optional runtime dep to the relevent packages.
