On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 09:37:41AM +0100, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek píše v So 14. 11. 2015 v 02:14 +:
> > Hi,
> >
> > implementing the split in Fedora deserves a Changes page,
> > because of the need to coordinate with other components of the
> > distribution (comps, so
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek píše v So 14. 11. 2015 v 02:14 +:
> Hi,
>
> implementing the split in Fedora deserves a Changes page,
> because of the need to coordinate with other components of the
> distribution (comps, some packages, anaconda):
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/systemd_p
Hi,
implementing the split in Fedora deserves a Changes page,
because of the need to coordinate with other components of the
distribution (comps, some packages, anaconda):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/systemd_package_split
All the details are described on the Change page. If anything
is
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:59:34AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> The other option of course is to declare all internal APIs exported
> .so symbols, but that would mean to commit to a stable API for them
> (which is completely out of the question), or to bump the soname on
> each release (which
On 12/11/15 08:59, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> The
> other option of course is to declare all internal APIs exported .so
> symbols, but that would mean to commit to a stable API for them (which
> is completely out of the question), or to bump the soname on each
> release (which is not an option eit
Lennart Poettering [2015-11-12 11:15 +0100]:
> > Won't you need it for udevadm hwdb --update, after you add a new
> > hwdb.d/ file? Or can we now have multiple compiled dbs, one shipped by
> > the package and one built dynamically by hwdb --update?
>
> Well, if you do add those locally. But that's
On Thu, 12.11.15 10:46, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering [2015-11-12 9:59 +0100]:
> > THere's no point in shipping the non-binary version of the hwdb. The
> > hwdb isn't a cache, it's a compiled version of the hwdb, and you don't
> > the sources around for this.
>
Lennart Poettering [2015-11-12 9:46 +0100]:
> > Another reason is to make it easy to enable/disable a particular
> > feature (e. g. libnss-myhostname).
>
> I don't see why one would ever disable this feature... I doubt this
> makes senseto split out really.
We have to do that because it's a sha
Lennart Poettering [2015-11-12 10:01 +0100]:
> > However, the gain through the extra dependencies is nontrivial: On a
> > minimal system, installing systemd-container pulls in some 20 extra
> > packages (libldap, sasl2-modules, libkrb5, libssh, ca-certificates
> > etc.)
>
> ldap, sasl, kerberos, l
Lennart Poettering [2015-11-12 9:59 +0100]:
> THere's no point in shipping the non-binary version of the hwdb. The
> hwdb isn't a cache, it's a compiled version of the hwdb, and you don't
> the sources around for this.
Won't you need it for udevadm hwdb --update, after you add a new
hwdb.d/ file?
Am 12.11.2015 um 09:46 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
On Wed, 11.11.15 12:58, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
Hello all,
in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving
recommendations? I. e. do you actually co
On Thu, 12.11.15 09:07, Lukáš Nykrýn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek píše v Čt 12. 11. 2015 v 06:13 +:
> > I prepared a package for rawhide with [1,2] the following
> > subpackages:
> > systemd-journal-remote (remote, upload, gatewayd)
> > systemd-container (nspawn, m
On Thu, 12.11.15 08:49, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> Hello Zbigniew,
>
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [2015-11-12 6:39 +]:
> > Installed size of systemd-udev is 6.5MB, systemd-container is 3.5MB,
> > systemd is 19MB, so the gain is modest. We also lose some dependencies.
>
>
On Wed, 11.11.15 13:38, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> > > systemd-firstboot (firstboot,sysusers?,factory stuff?)
>
> I wonder if this is worth the trouble. The binaries are currently
> fairly big, but do they bring in any external dependencies?
> Maybe we should instead
On Wed, 11.11.15 14:33, Lukáš Nykrýn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > systemd-machine (machined,nspawn,importd)
> >
> > I'd call this "systemd-nspawn.rpm", really... The name of the daemon
> > is irrelevant.
> >
> > > systemd-firstboot (firstboot,sysusers?,factory stuff?)
> >
> > I'd real
On Wed, 11.11.15 16:03, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/2015 03:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >Why not systemd-devel?
>
> Because these aren't development related discussion and there is a need for
> separated collaborated git repository to prevent
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.
> >
On Wed, 11.11.15 12:58, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
>
> However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving
> recommendations? I. e. do you actually consider putting this kind of
> split into the
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek píše v Čt 12. 11. 2015 v 05:42 +:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:33:52PM +0100, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
> > > > systemd-firstboot (firstboot,sysusers?,factory stuff?)
> > >
> > > I'd really not bother with this stuff. This should be in the
> > > base,
> > > and
> > > it i
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek píše v Čt 12. 11. 2015 v 06:13 +:
> I prepared a package for rawhide with [1,2] the following
> subpackages:
> systemd-journal-remote (remote, upload, gatewayd)
> systemd-container (nspawn, machinectl, machined, importd, pull, var
> -lib-machines.mount)
> systemd-ude
Hello Zbigniew,
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [2015-11-12 6:39 +]:
> Installed size of systemd-udev is 6.5MB, systemd-container is 3.5MB,
> systemd is 19MB, so the gain is modest. We also lose some dependencies.
To compare with Debian: systemd: 17.5 MB, s-container 2.4 MB, udev 6.6
MB, so this
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 06:13:32AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:58:14PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
> >
> > However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving
> > re
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:58:14PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
>
> However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving
> recommendations? I. e. do you actually consider putting this kind of
> split into the upstrea
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:33:52PM +0100, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
> > > systemd-firstboot (firstboot,sysusers?,factory stuff?)
> >
> > I'd really not bother with this stuff. This should be in the base,
> > and
> > it is tiny. Plese leave this in the main package.
>
> The only reason was that it pulls
On 11.11.2015 12:58, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
>
> However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving
> recommendations? I. e. do you actually consider putting this kind of
> split into the upstream build system à la "
On 11.11.2015 16:28, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote on 11/11/15 13:38:
>> systemd-machine (machined,nspawn,importd)
We call that package "systemd-container", but it has exactly those, so
"check".
>> I think we (Fedora) should follow this, for inter-distr
Am 11.11.2015 um 22:30 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 11/11/2015 08:28 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
2015-11-11 21:21 GMT+01:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson :
[snip]
To coordinate and oversee and collectively share work done between
distribution integrating the relevant components in their distributio
Am 11.11.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 11/11/2015 08:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.11.2015 um 21:21 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
Because these aren't development related discussion
this list was multiple times statet also as users-list by Lennart
himself, just use
On 11/11/2015 08:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.11.2015 um 21:21 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 11/11/2015 04:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.11.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 11/11/2015 03:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Why not systemd-devel?
Becau
On 11/11/2015 08:28 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
2015-11-11 21:21 GMT+01:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson :
[snip]
To coordinate and oversee and collectively share work done between
distribution integrating the relevant components in their distribution.
And now you started an unrelated meta-discussion. P
Am 11.11.2015 um 21:21 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 11/11/2015 04:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.11.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 11/11/2015 03:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Why not systemd-devel?
Because these aren't development related discussion
2015-11-11 21:21 GMT+01:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson :
[snip]
> To coordinate and oversee and collectively share work done between
> distribution integrating the relevant components in their distribution.
And now you started an unrelated meta-discussion. Please do that in a
separate thread and don't h
On 11/11/2015 04:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.11.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 11/11/2015 03:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Why not systemd-devel?
Because these aren't development related discussion
this list was multiple times statet also as users-list
Am 11.11.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 11/11/2015 03:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Why not systemd-devel?
Because these aren't development related discussion
this list was multiple times statet also as users-list by Lennart
himself, just use Google to find th
On 11/11/2015 03:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Why not systemd-devel?
Because these aren't development related discussion and there is a need
for separated collaborated git repository to prevent duplication of
downstream work etc.
JBG
__
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 03:43:51PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/2015 01:12 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >2015-11-11 12:58 GMT+01:00 Martin Pitt :
> >>Hello all,
> >>
> >>in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
> >>
> >>However, is this even a topic for upstre
On 11/11/2015 01:12 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
2015-11-11 12:58 GMT+01:00 Martin Pitt :
Hello all,
in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving
recommendations? I. e. do you actually consider putting this kind of
split
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote on 11/11/15 13:38:
>>> > > systemd-machine (machined,nspawn,importd)
>> >
>> > We call that package "systemd-container", but it has exactly those, so
>> > "check".
> I think we (Fedora) should follow this, for inter-distro consistency.
I prefer that name to syst
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:58:14PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
>
> However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving
> recommendations? I. e. do you actually consider putting this kind of
> split into the upstrea
> > Lennart Poettering píše v St 11. 11. 2015 v 12:29 +0100:
>
> > systemd-networkd (maybe also with resolved?)
>
> I'd probably leave this in the main RPM, after all it doesn't take
> possession of any interfaces by default, but makes sure
> libsystemd-network returns useful stuff.
>
> But if y
2015-11-11 12:58 GMT+01:00 Martin Pitt :
> Hello all,
>
> in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
>
> However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving
> recommendations? I. e. do you actually consider putting this kind of
> split into the upstream build system à la "m
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:58:14PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Lukáš Nykrýn [2015-11-11 11:47 +0100]:
> > 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.
>
> They are actually fairly big, 100 kB to 1.5 MB for sy
On 11/11/2015 11:58 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
However, is this even a topic for upstream,
I would argue not.
I would argue that this is a downstream collaboration matter in which a)
the split should be the same regardless of distribution and the sub
components should be split in same manner acr
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.
Hello all,
in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian.
However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving
recommendations? I. e. do you actually consider putting this kind of
split into the upstream build system à la "make install-"?
Lukáš Nykrýn [2015-11-11 11:47 +0100]
On Wed, 11.11.15 11:47, Lukáš Nykrýn (lnyk...@redhat.com) 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 p
> I thought the conscious was not recommending downstream to split
> systemd
> into subpackages?
>
I think the previous discussion was more about if we should split core
components of systemd like systemd-logind, which still should stay in
the main package.
And most of distributions split thei
On 11/11/2015 10:57 AM, Michal Sekletar wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
wrote:
I thought the conscious was not recommending downstream to split systemd
into subpackages?
This decision was recently (at systemd.conf) reevaluated :)
Not everybody can attend co
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
wrote:
>
> I thought the conscious was not recommending downstream to split systemd
> into subpackages?
>
This decision was recently (at systemd.conf) reevaluated :)
Michal
___
systemd-devel maili
On 11/11/2015 10:47 AM, 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.
I thought the conscious was not recommending downstream to split systemd
into subpac
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. Onl
51 matches
Mail list logo
