Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes: > > RWMJ> Couldn't it use inotify (or whatever we're using these days to > RWMJ> detect filesystem changes)? So when you drop in the unit file, > RWMJ> systemd notices and reloads. > > Well, the point is

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Hi, > It doesn't help that there doesn't seem to be a way to use systemd's > own container technologies to do these things in a more lightweight, > yet compatible fashion. nspawn currently only does OS style > containers, where you have another PID 1 inside. Hmm? I have a fedora 23 container

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 17.12.15 22:22, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:35:03PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes: > > > > HH> The preset enablement would be missing. > > > > Couldn't systemd simply apply

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 18.12.2015 um 15:39 schrieb Neil Horman: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:18:10PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: What I hear you saying is that on a system that has nothing better to do, the primary monitoring process wakes up periodically to check on various system aspects (cron jobs, journal

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 03:36:21PM -, g...@cfware.com wrote: > I have no experience with containers so forgive me if I'm missing > something. Why couldn't you just have a 'microinit.rpm' in a separate > dnf repo, put 'Obsoletes: systemd' into that package? This way people > who are building

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:18:10PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 17.12.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Neil Horman: > >On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:04:48PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > >>Am 17.12.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Neil Horman: > >>>On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: >

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 18.12.2015 um 15:44 schrieb Neil Horman: On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:27:33AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: For some packages "reduced capacity" because of lack of systemd.rpm means "doesn't even get started as expected" or "crashes on start with permission errors" or "cannot

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

I have no experience with containers so forgive me if I'm missing something. Why couldn't you just have a 'microinit.rpm' in a separate dnf repo, put 'Obsoletes: systemd' into that package? This way people who are building hundreds of containers that do not require systemd can use the repo

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:27:33AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > > >For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current > > >"Requires: systemd"

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 18.12.2015 um 16:36 schrieb g...@cfware.com: I have no experience with containers so forgive me if I'm missing something. Why couldn't you just have a 'microinit.rpm' in a separate dnf repo, put 'Obsoletes: systemd' into that package? This way people who are building hundreds of

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On 17.12.2015 11:15, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes: > > HH> To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak > HH> dependencies. So the > > I'm not sure I see the point. The dependencies are there so that the > scriptlets

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

> "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes: HH> To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak HH> dependencies. So the I'm not sure I see the point. The dependencies are there so that the scriptlets work. If the scriptlets don't actually need to work then there's

no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal image. To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak dependencies. So the Requires(post): systemd Requires(preun): systemd

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > The downside is: > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trigger > - packages, which need systemd-tmpfiles or systemd-sysusers could not be > converted IIRC, some time ago there was a proposal to

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote: > > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. If you > build your container layers properly, you can effectively put systemd in a > base > container and layer other applications in child containers that inherit

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43:32AM +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote: > For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current > "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal > image. > > To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:36:05PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > > > The downside is: > > > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > > The downside is: > > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trigger > > - packages, which need systemd-tmpfiles or

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 17.12.15 10:27, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:18:12PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > IIRC, some time ago there was a proposal to split systemd-tmpfiles, > > > systemd-sysusers and other utilities to separate sub-package called > > >

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 17.12.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Lennart Poettering: On Thu, 17.12.15 10:50, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: Nope, that's not the point to make. We ship tons of stuff you don't always need, but why is this

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Can you give realistic examples for these? Can you explain what you > are intend to run as PID 1 in them instead? Nothing, if the pid namespace did zombie collection in the kernel, you don't need a separate init. > What is cleaning

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Nope, that's not the point to make. We ship tons of stuff you don't > always need, but why is this stuff that matters? Is it *that* large? "Ship" and "require in the most minimal application-only install case" are different.

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 17.12.2015 um 16:54 schrieb Lennart Poettering: On Thu, 17.12.15 10:44, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote: What is cleaning up /tmp for those things? You bind mount the container's /tmp to a host /tmp/container-$uuid for example. Well, and what sets up all the rest listed in

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: Because microservice containers are a valid goal, and allowing them to be more minimal while still pulling in glibc etc. is useful (from the start of this thread). > Note that PID 1 is in more ways different than just reaping >

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 17.12.15 10:02, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > > > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. > If

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 17.12.15 10:44, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > Can you give realistic examples for these? Can you explain what you > > are intend to run as PID 1 in them instead? > > Nothing, if the pid namespace did zombie

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:07:34AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > Let's be clear - from my perspective systemd's design is awesome > for the *real* pid 1. AFAIK no one here is talking about changing anything > related to that. We're just talking about supporting microservice > containers without

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 17.12.15 11:28, Michal Sekletar (msekl...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > > The downside is: > > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trigger > > - packages, which need systemd-tmpfiles or

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 17.12.15 14:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > > > The downside is: > > > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:18:12PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > IIRC, some time ago there was a proposal to split systemd-tmpfiles, > > systemd-sysusers and other utilities to separate sub-package called > > systemd-tools. We should probably revisit this idea. > Why? Do you have any

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:17:37PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > So, this I think goes to the core of things: What is Fedora supposed > to be? I always thought it was supposed to be an OS, meaning a > provider of certain APIs, resources and functionality that apps can > rely on. tmpfiles and

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 17.12.15 10:50, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Nope, that's not the point to make. We ship tons of stuff you don't > > always need, but why is this stuff that matters? Is it *that* large? > >

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 17.12.15 10:43, Harald Hoyer (har...@redhat.com) wrote: > For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current > "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a > minimal image. What does this even mean? What are you actually "fixing" with this?

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 17.12.15 10:02, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. If > > you > > build your container layers properly, you can effectively put systemd in a > >

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 08:28:13AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. > If you build your container layers properly, you can effectively put > systemd in a base container and layer other applications in child > containers that inherit

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 17.12.15 10:25, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 08:28:13AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. > > If you build your container layers properly, you can effectively put > > systemd in

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:57:26PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > If, instead, every package at the base level would take modularity as a > > baseline principle, we'd be in a lot better and more flexible state. > > > Does it have such heavy otherwise unneeded deps? > > In some cases, yes. In

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 17.12.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Reindl Harald: Am 17.12.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Lennart Poettering: On Thu, 17.12.15 10:50, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:40:16PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: Nope, that's not the point to make. We ship tons

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:07:34AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: >> Let's be clear - from my perspective systemd's design is awesome >> for the *real* pid 1. AFAIK no one here is talking about changing anything >>

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:18:21PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 17.12.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Reindl Harald: > > > > > >Am 17.12.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Lennart Poettering: > >>On Thu, 17.12.15 10:50, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, December 17, 2015 8:08 am, Mustafa Muhammad wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Lennart Poettering > wrote: > >> On Thu, 17.12.15 10:02, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote: >> > > >> > > I

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 17.12.15 10:44, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > > Can you give realistic examples for these? Can you explain what you > > > are

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:25:17AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 08:28:13AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. > > If you build your container layers properly, you can effectively put > > systemd in a base

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:02:43AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 08:28 AM, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > I would question why its necessecary to keep systemd out so ardently. If > > you > > build your container layers properly, you can effectively put systemd in a > > base

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 17.12.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Craig Garner: I usually don't say anything and just read...it's not really my place. I just like to keep up with things going on. But, by the time you finish worrying about all the overhead and things get finalized, there's going to be so damn much RAM and

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 17.12.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Neil Horman: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:18:21PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: OK, you want numbers full featured VM running authoritative DNS for hundrets of zones while bind and rsyslog would be enough __ whole operating system: 795

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

> "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes: HH> The preset enablement would be missing. Couldn't systemd simply apply presets when it is installed? (Not upgraded, but on a fresh install?) - J< -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 01:19 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > In either case, you're going to wind up butchering a fair amount of what the > rpm > is going to be doing anyway. If its so important to minimize that storage, > rpm > dependencies shouldn't really be a big deal, because you know you're

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

I usually don't say anything and just read...it's not really my place. I just like to keep up with things going on. But, by the time you finish worrying about all the overhead and things get finalized, there's going to be so damn much RAM and processing power no one will care. Kind of like

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 04:00 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > If its so important to not use up that small > additional amount of ram and cpu, so be it, but that seems like a different > question than the one being addressed. That is primarily what I'm talking about indeed. The disk usage does

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:35:03PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes: > > HH> The preset enablement would be missing. > > Couldn't systemd simply apply presets when it is installed? (Not > upgraded, but on a fresh install?) Couldn't it

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:04:48PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 17.12.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Neil Horman: > >On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > >>What you're arguing is that *build* convenience for our current architecture > >>outweighs the *runtime* cost.

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

3D XPoint On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: > > > > > > Am 17.12.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Craig Garner: > >> > >> I usually don't say anything and just read...it's not

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 01:19 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > In either case, you're going to wind up butchering a fair amount of what > > the rpm > > is going to be doing anyway. If its so important to minimize that storage, > >

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 17.12.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Neil Horman: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: What you're arguing is that *build* convenience for our current architecture outweighs the *runtime* cost. That doesn't make sense long term - they're different problems. What runtime

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

Am 17.12.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Neil Horman: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:04:48PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 17.12.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Neil Horman: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:39:17PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: What you're arguing is that *build* convenience for our current architecture

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 17.12.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Craig Garner: >> >> I usually don't say anything and just read...it's not really my place. >> I just like to keep up with things going on. But, by the time you >> finish worrying

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 17.12.15 11:28, Michal Sekletar (msekl...@redhat.com) wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: >> > The downside is: >> > - if systemd is installed afterwards,

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes: RWMJ> Couldn't it use inotify (or whatever we're using these days to RWMJ> detect filesystem changes)? So when you drop in the unit file, RWMJ> systemd notices and reloads. Well, the point is that systemd isn't running or even

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal image. To improve the situation, we could make use of the new rpm weak dependencies. So the

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > To prevent having a non-bootable system (not container), we could let the > kernel.spec have a Requires on systemd. The kernel has had a Requires on systemd for quite some time. It is now in kernel-core, but you cannot

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 01:23:01PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > FWIW, In freight[1], I assume systemd is a member of every container, > and that services are started via unit files in the container. Its > made generating containers unbelievably easy, in that it doesn't > require any additional

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:34:31PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 12/17/2015 05:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > >>On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > >>>For docker containers, or containers, which don't

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On 12/17/2015 05:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:34:31PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 12/17/2015 05:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:54:52PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 12/17/2015 05:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:34:31PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > >>On 12/17/2015 05:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >>>On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

2015-12-18 0:58 GMT+01:00 Jason L Tibbitts III : >> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes: > > RWMJ> Couldn't it use inotify (or whatever we're using these days to > RWMJ> detect filesystem changes)? So when you drop in the unit file, > RWMJ> systemd

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 16:13 -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > > For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current > > "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal > > image. > > > > To improve the

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:19:44PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 17.12.15 14:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > >For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current > >"Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a minimal > >image. > > > >To improve

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On 12/17/2015 05:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:13:06PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On 12/17/2015 04:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 16:13 -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 12/17/2015 01:43 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: For docker containers, or containers, which don't want systemd, the current "Requires: systemd" in a lot of packages is preventing building a

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:35:03PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "HH" == Harald Hoyer writes: > > HH> The preset enablement would be missing. > > Couldn't systemd simply apply presets when it is installed? (Not > upgraded, but on a fresh install?) No. It simply

Re: no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 01:24:27AM +0100, Haïkel wrote: > 2015-12-18 0:58 GMT+01:00 Jason L Tibbitts III : > >> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones writes: > > > > RWMJ> Couldn't it use inotify (or whatever we're using these days to > > RWMJ> detect filesystem