On Mon, 04.07.11 19:28, Kay Sievers ([email protected]) wrote: > >> 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? :)
The fact that in fedora systemd is split into systemd and systemd-units has mostly historical reasons and we probably should find a way to merge them again. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
