F22 System Wide Change: Systemd Package Split

[Peter Robinson]

>> > Systemd contains many binaries and depends on a fairly large number of
>> > libraries. Packages which carry systemd units currently have to depend
>> > on
>> > systemd (through %post, %preun, %postun macros used to install and
>> > uninstall
>> > systemd units), which grows the dependency tree and increases the size
>> > of
>> > minimal installs.
>> >
>> > With this proposal systemd-units subpackages will be split out again:
>> > systemd-units
>>
>> Really not a fan of this, but you are proposing here to reintroduce a
>> "-units" package again, and it will container directories and
>> binaries, but no actual units? Did I get that right?
>>
>> Like Kay I think a "systemd-filesystem.rpm" that owns the dirs would
>> be a better idea... In particular as the systemctl invocations are all
>> suffixed with "|| : > /dev/null 2> /dev/null" (at least the ones done
>> via our macros), and hence should become NOPs if systemd itself is
>> missing...
>>
> systemd-filesystem sounds like a good idea. As for this proposal -- while it
> might reduce the size of the buildroot used to build packages depending on
> systemd-related macros, what would the effect be on minimal installs --
> don't they include systemd anyway?

I agree on the systemd-filesystem side of things, the binaries sounds
like it would be better described as systemd-utils with a provides for
-units.

I don't believe you necessarily need systemd in some container
situations so possibly that's what's being looked at.

Peter