On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:58:14PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello all, > > in case it's useful, this is how we split them in Debian. > > However, is this even a topic for upstream, apart from giving > recommendations? I. e. do you actually consider putting this kind of > split into the upstream build system à la "make install-<component>"? > > Lukáš Nykrýn [2015-11-11 11:47 +0100]: > > Personally I don't think it makes sense to split the package to get a > > smaller core package. Most of our binaries are just few KBs. > > They are actually fairly big, 100 kB to 1.5 MB for systemd itself. I > think the main reason for that is that they all statically link > libsystemd instead of dynamically linking to libsystemd.so.0. Is there > a particular reason for that? > > > Other aspect would be minimizing external dependencies. > > That is one important reason why we split them in Debian; e. g. the > machined/nspawn/importd group pulls in a number of rather heavy > dependencies. udev (including hwdb) is something which you don't need > in containers, so we split that out too. > > Another reason is to make it easy to enable/disable a particular > feature (e. g. libnss-myhostname). > > And then of course the infamous "need to run with sysvinit/upstart", > which other distros don't need to be concerned about :-) > > > So I suggest following scheme > > FTR, this isn't too far away what we already do in Debian/Ubuntu: > > > systemd > > check > > > systemd-libs > > systemd-devel > > They are called a bit differently for distro policy, upgrade safety, > consistency, and multi-arch support reasons; we need separate binary > packages for every lib*.so. But in spirit, "check". > > > systemd-journal-remote (so gatewayd,remote,upload) > > Check, we have exactly this package name. > > > systemd-networkd (maybe also with resolved?) > > We currently keep that in the "systemd" package as splitting it out > now is a bit of an upgrade pain, but we discussed doing this. > > > systemd-machine (machined,nspawn,importd) > > We call that package "systemd-container", but it has exactly those, so > "check". > > > systemd-firstboot (firstboot,sysusers?,factory stuff?) > > We don't have a separate package for that. > > > systemd-hwdb > > We split out the entire udev, including hwdb. This nicely reduces the > footprint in containers and also allows us to use udev with > sysvinit/upstart.
Yeah, after removing a bunch of stuff, hwdb stuff becomes even more pronounced. I prepared a package for rawhide with [1,2] the following subpackages: systemd-journal-remote (remote, upload, gatewayd) systemd-container (nspawn, machinectl, machined, importd, pull, var-lib-machines.mount) systemd-udev (udevd, udevadm, udev rules, hwdb). The first two are uncontroversial (systemd-journal-remote already existed as systemd-journal-gateway for a long time). The last is somewhat controversial: while people seem to agree about the split, it's not necessary clear whether udevd should be in the subpackage or not. I went with "yes", to see how that works out. I think this makes more sense this way, but maybe not. [1] http://in.waw.pl/git/fedora-systemd/ [2] https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/zbyszek/systemd/build/138959/ _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel