Le lundi 04 juillet 2011 à 19:28 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit : > 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? :)
Please re-read what I wrote : the point is to have a common macro which would allow packagers to ensure they don't forget anything. The name of the package pulled by this macro is not relevant. -- Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> SUSE _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
