Hello Gunnar, others, On Wed 19 Aug 2020 at 12:31PM -05, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Maybe we could improve on the problem putting it upside down: What if > systemd stated "Provides:" for their main interfaces? While not every > provided binary would qualify as a "main interface", I think a line > such as: > > Provides: journalctl, loginctl, systemctl > > would make sense for systemd. Other scripts could depend on the > specific functionality they make use of. > > Probably, the systemctl package would require a rename to > 'docker-systemctl' or something like that (the upstream name is > 'docker systemctl replacement'). > > What is the systemd maintainers view of this idea? And the > systemctl's? If this solution was thought acceptable I think we'd want to register these new virtual packages in Policy, since they wouldn't be used purely among a "co-operating group of packages". -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
