On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800 > Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani <lx...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd >>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about >>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm). >>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to >>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after >>> all). >> >> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd >> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which >> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I >> would think it is better to add them to a separate systemd-units >> package. > > How would that package handle unit files differing per package > versions? For example, changed options, relocated executables...
It would effectively need to be bumped every time any package added, removed or changed a unit file requirement. Also every time a unit file-bearing package is added or removed from tree. That would be one insanely hot package.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
