On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:35:39 +0100 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:41:45AM +0000, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2015-03-04, Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com wrote:
- #615 Strategy for services that do not have systemd native unit
files (ajax, 18:03:09)
- AGREED: drop sysvinit subpackages if a systemd unit file
exists, in f23 (ajax, 18:17:32)
- AGREED: drop sysvinit subpackages if a systemd unit file
exists, in f23 (ajax, 18:18:00)
- ACTION: ajax to prune sysvinit subpackages in f23 (ajax,
18:22:03)
What? The topic was "services that do not have systemd native unit files" but the decision was on "subpackages if a systemd unit file exists"?
In other words, the decision was about completly different set of packages?
This was mostly just an artifact of that ticket being filed 4 years ago, and fesco was mostly talking about the most recent actual proposal ( https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/615#comment:43 )
Yes, but this decision makes sense imho. The way I understand FESCo members' reasoning is:
- dropping sysinit support in packages *with* systemd unit files is the first step.
- it is too late to do anything for F22 anyway, and after 1. is done, the issue can be revisited for packages *without* direct systemd
support.
Yeah.
Speaking only for myself:
* I think we should continue to encourage maintainers and upstreams to move to systemd native unit files wherever possible.
* I don't think we should as a policy drop or remove packages that have not yet done so.
kevin