Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 14:23 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > So splitting out networkd would be possible, but it's smallish (<1MB) > and doesn't bring in extra deps. It would, however, allow us to finally solve all incarnations of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313085 and friends, if you put the tmpfiles.d bit for systemd-resolved's resolv.conf symlink in the subpackage and we didn't include it in any Fedora builds that don't use resolved. -- Adam WilliamsonFedora QA Community MonkeyIRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . nethttp://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 10:11:52AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Mo, 2016-03-07 at 15:56 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:21:38AM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > Does this mean we can install systemd into a base container without > > > systemd-udev? > > > And without systemd-container? > > Yep. That's more or less the point of the change. > > Plans to split out more? > > console setup comes to mind. was mentioned on the list recently that > this is quite big because it pulls in keymaps as dependency. And it's > also something you don't need in a container. > > Maybe also network (networkd/resolved) given that fedora uses > networkmanager by default. Probably hasn't a big effect on the main > package size though. The problem is that various systemd components use each other a lot, so there are various cross-dependencies, and we quickly get to the point of diminishing returns. You can see the upstream discussion [e.g. the thread around [1]]. Creating a hell of little packages does not make sense, especially considering that if you miss something you might end up with an unbootable system. Only subpackages that are a) at least a few megabytes or bring in dependencies on libraries that are not shared by the rest of systemd, b) are "leaf" components which are not required by other systemd components, are useful candidates for splitting out. So splitting out networkd would be possible, but it's smallish (<1MB) and doesn't bring in extra deps. OTOH, the console setup stuff could be a useful candidate because of deps. I have to admit I haven't looked into that. Maybe we could move the console setup stuff over to systemd-udev subpackage. You only do console setup if you have hardware (?). Zbyszek [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-November/034963.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
On Mo, 2016-03-07 at 15:56 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:21:38AM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > Does this mean we can install systemd into a base container without > > systemd-udev? > > And without systemd-container? > Yep. That's more or less the point of the change. Plans to split out more? console setup comes to mind. was mentioned on the list recently that this is quite big because it pulls in keymaps as dependency. And it's also something you don't need in a container. Maybe also network (networkd/resolved) given that fedora uses networkmanager by default. Probably hasn't a big effect on the main package size though. cheers, Gerd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:21:38AM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > Does this mean we can install systemd into a base container without > systemd-udev? > And without systemd-container? Yep. That's more or less the point of the change. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
On 03/05/2016 03:09 PM, Haïkel wrote: 2016-03-04 23:36 GMT+01:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek : Hi, I finally pushed the split of the systemd package to Rawhide and F24 today [https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/systemd_package_split]. If you upgrade with dnf you should see something like this: Installing: systemd-container x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 353 k replacing systemd.x86_64 222-13.fc23 systemd-udev x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 1.2 M replacing systemd.x86_64 222-13.fc23 Upgrading: systemdx86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 5.1 M systemd-libs x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 452 k ... (systemd-udev provides udevd and hardware support, systemd-container provides machinectl and other tools to manager containers and VMs.) Comps 'core' group includes systemd-udev as mandatory and systemd-container as optional, so they should be present in new installs. Please check that you have systemd-udev package installed after an upgrade. If you are building containers, things should be functional without either of those new packages. Otherwise, please holler on the bugzilla or here. Zbyszek Great news! Thank you for keeping us up to date;) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Does this mean we can install systemd into a base container without systemd-udev? And without systemd-container? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:30:15AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 4.3.2016 v 23:36 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > I finally pushed the split of the systemd package to Rawhide and F24 today > > [https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/systemd_package_split]. > > If you upgrade with dnf you should see something like this: > > Installing: > > systemd-container x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline > > 353 k > > Just to be sure - the dist tag in your example confuse me little - this is > only F24+ and it will not be backported to > F23. Right? Yes, F24+ only. Oops, I was also testing on a F23 laptop and pasted from there. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
Dne 4.3.2016 v 23:36 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > I finally pushed the split of the systemd package to Rawhide and F24 today > [https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/systemd_package_split]. > If you upgrade with dnf you should see something like this: > Installing: > systemd-container x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 353 > k Just to be sure - the dist tag in your example confuse me little - this is only F24+ and it will not be backported to F23. Right? -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
2016-03-04 23:36 GMT+01:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek : > Hi, > > I finally pushed the split of the systemd package to Rawhide and F24 today > [https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/systemd_package_split]. > If you upgrade with dnf you should see something like this: > Installing: > systemd-container x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 353 > k > replacing systemd.x86_64 222-13.fc23 > systemd-udev x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 1.2 > M > replacing systemd.x86_64 222-13.fc23 > Upgrading: > systemdx86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 5.1 > M > systemd-libs x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 452 > k > ... > > (systemd-udev provides udevd and hardware support, systemd-container provides > machinectl and other tools to manager containers and VMs.) > > Comps 'core' group includes systemd-udev as mandatory and systemd-container > as optional, so they should be present in new installs. > Please check that you have systemd-udev package installed after an upgrade. > If you are building containers, things should be functional without either > of those new packages. > Otherwise, please holler on the bugzilla or here. > > Zbyszek Great news! Thank you for keeping us up to date;) > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:36:01PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > I finally pushed the split of the systemd package to Rawhide and F24 today Exciting — thanks! -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 01:29:46PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > The %_udevrulesdir macro stays in the main systemd package. Is that > on purpose? Maybe not on purpose ;), but I think it's OK, and things would break otherwise. Packages that have BuildRequires:systemd get the macro. OTOH, systemd-udev requires systemd, so if you depend on that you'll get the macro too, although I don't think that requiring systemd-udev at build time makes much sense. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: HEADS UP: systemd package split
On 4.3.2016 23:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Hi, I finally pushed the split of the systemd package to Rawhide and F24 today [https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/systemd_package_split]. If you upgrade with dnf you should see something like this: Installing: systemd-container x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 353 k replacing systemd.x86_64 222-13.fc23 systemd-udev x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 1.2 M replacing systemd.x86_64 222-13.fc23 Upgrading: systemdx86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 5.1 M systemd-libs x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 452 k ... (systemd-udev provides udevd and hardware support, systemd-container provides machinectl and other tools to manager containers and VMs.) Comps 'core' group includes systemd-udev as mandatory and systemd-container as optional, so they should be present in new installs. Please check that you have systemd-udev package installed after an upgrade. If you are building containers, things should be functional without either of those new packages. Otherwise, please holler on the bugzilla or here. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org The %_udevrulesdir macro stays in the main systemd package. Is that on purpose? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
HEADS UP: systemd package split
Hi, I finally pushed the split of the systemd package to Rawhide and F24 today [https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/systemd_package_split]. If you upgrade with dnf you should see something like this: Installing: systemd-container x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 353 k replacing systemd.x86_64 222-13.fc23 systemd-udev x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 1.2 M replacing systemd.x86_64 222-13.fc23 Upgrading: systemdx86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 5.1 M systemd-libs x86_64 229-5.fc23@commandline 452 k ... (systemd-udev provides udevd and hardware support, systemd-container provides machinectl and other tools to manager containers and VMs.) Comps 'core' group includes systemd-udev as mandatory and systemd-container as optional, so they should be present in new installs. Please check that you have systemd-udev package installed after an upgrade. If you are building containers, things should be functional without either of those new packages. Otherwise, please holler on the bugzilla or here. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org