On Wed, 08 May 2013 13:18:57 -0400
Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/08/2013 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 May 2013 23:26:57 +0800
> > Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
> >>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
> >>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
> >>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to
> >>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after
> >>> all).
> >>
> >> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd
> >> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which
> >> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I
> >> would think it is better to add them to a separate systemd-units
> >> package.
> > 
> > How would that package handle unit files differing per package
> > versions? For example, changed options, relocated executables...
> 
> It would effectively need to be bumped every time any package added,
> removed or changed a unit file requirement. Also every time a unit
> file-bearing package is added or removed from tree.
> 
> That would be one insanely hot package.

Please note that stable & unstable versions of packages may require
different units.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny