From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8545B1381F3 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 15:40:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D3D3E0973; Wed, 8 May 2013 15:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44A26E096A for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 15:40:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [130.149.240.145] (wm006.ziik.tu-berlin.de [130.149.240.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E76EE33DFD6 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 15:40:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <518A71AA.8070101@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:39:22 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: ee6fe12d-b77a-4ec5-ae32-2b69c1ab5f4f X-Archives-Hash: f1a339f3d21b10e0852c7c9f6de067b3 Ben de Groot schrieb: > On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani 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. Note that a similar thing is already done with the selinux policy packages. Mostly the complaints against adding systemd units are that it would unnecessarily clutter non-systemd installs. Users who complain are told to set INSTALL_MASK but that is somewhat unwieldy. A separate package for the unit file would solve this problem nicely. Another option would be to add a "dounit" command to a future EAPI (like doinitd today) and make portage install them unless FEATURES="nounit" (like nodoc/noinfo/noman today). Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn