systemd dependencies

[Michal Sekletar]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:59:23PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 26.8.2014 11:06, Michal Sekletar napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Hi,
> > Hi Vít,
> >
> >> Recently I have noticed that systemd package dependency is creeping into
> >> some packages where it is not necessary. subversion [1] or rsync [2] are
> >> good examples. Please consider moving daemon parts into independent
> >> subpackages. When I install rsync/subversion, I am typically interested
> >> just in client side.
> > At some point in time (F16 IIRC) we had systemd-units package which contained
> > /etc/rpm/macros.systemd file. Packagers which followed our guidelines used for
> > example %{unitdir} macro in %files. Hence they added systemd-units to
> > BuildRequires.
> >
> > These days systemd-units no longer exists, macro file moved to systemd rpm and
> > systemd-units is a provided by systemd rpm.
> 
> Thank you for insightful explanation.
> 
> Nevertheless, if you are using some macro, it is just build time
> dependency. I believe that the issue might be due to %{unitdir} folder
> ownership. And I see two solutions:

Yes it is build time dependency only.

> 
> 1) Packages which ships unit files should consider to put them into sub
> package called either -daemon or -server. And this applies especially to
> packages such as man (forgot to mention this one previously), rsync or
> subversion. I don't typically use their server features or con jobs or
> whatever.

I think we can't make this a general rule. There are packages which has to ship
unit files in a main package and I'd argue that we have quite a lot of those. Note
that it is rather gut feeling not a fact I researched or measured in any
way. In any case having *recomendation* in guidelines doesn't hurt, thus such
split should be left at the curtesy of the individual maintainers.

But then again, I am not against such change in packages where it makes
sense.

> 
> 2) sytemd should consider to provide -filesystem package, which would
> limit the dependency to single small package (but this might be return
> to the -units subpackage days? Not sure).

That may improve a situation, but we have to commit to not going down the same
road in the future as we did with systemd-units. However I don't have all the
context why systemd-units was merged into systemd back then.

> 
> Their combination might be the best solution.
> 
> Vít

Michal
> -- 
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct