On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 14:57, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> wrote: > Le lundi 04 juillet 2011 à 14:53 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit : >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 14:10, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > (this macro could refer to different package, if people don't agree on >> > systemd-units as packagename) >> >> I don't agree on the split-off in general. :) >> >> I don't really see how a subpackage gives us any advantage, and we >> should not recommend its use, I think. > > In that case, I suggest we keep the macro name in the proposal (because > we want other packages to requires "some" systemd package in their > specfile, but the content of the macro can change in distributions.
What's the point of having "some" sub-package at all? I guess, stuff should just depend on systemd.rpm instead of making it all needlessly complicated. Or should I package udev-rules.rpm next? :) Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
