On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Filipe Brandenburger <filbran...@google.com> wrote: > Guys let's try to be constructive here... > > This time it shouldn't be too painful for downstreams since the revert > was the last patch to the man subtree so just a git revert of that > should get your trees to the state you need to get v221 packages for > Debian and Ubuntu. In that sense, I think we're still (slightly) > better off than we were in v220 and I think we have all we need to > solve this one for good in v222. > > And let's use the momentum to try to solve this soon, in which case > you could even replace the revert of that commit with the backport of > the next one (which will probably remove the disted manpages).
I was involved in the decision to revert it. And I'm sure we should not add the patch back. The split-usr option is not much more than an "upgrade path" for traditional unix layouts to merge the operating system into a single directory. The split-usr option is nothing upstream systemd could fully suport. We need the unified layout for several options systemd offers, and more and more new things will rely on it. Split-usr will not got away anytime soon, but it will get less and less support regarding new features we add to systemd. The last-minute revert was not properly communicated, I am sorry for that, but the technical reasons for the revert are still true. Not dist'ing the man pages does not make the feature itself correct. We should not provide options to render the man page content inconsistently. The search paths would need to be mangled too, or none of them. But again, I am against upstream support for man split-usr man pages because systemd cannot fully support split-usr anyway, and should not pretend it does. Please do that downstream where the classic file system layout is supported. Thanks, Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel