On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:35:39 +0100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:41:45AM +0000, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2015-03-04, Adam Jackson <ajax(a)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:
1. dropping sysinit support in packages *with* systemd unit files is
the first step.
2. 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