On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 19:33, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Mon, 04.07.11 19:28, Kay Sievers (kay.siev...@vrfy.org) wrote: > >> >> 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? :) > > The fact that in fedora systemd is split into systemd and systemd-units > has mostly historical reasons and we probably should find a way to merge > them again.
Yeah, that's what I meant. We should not recommend doing that. You and I thought that time it would make the bootstrapping easier, but in reality it cannot solve the problem at that level, so we should just drop the indirection and just make packages depend on 'systemd' directly. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
