[systemd-devel] [packaging] split of systemd package

poma pomidorabelisima at gmail.com
Wed Nov 11 15:19:00 PST 2015

On 11.11.2015 16:28, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote on 11/11/15 13:38:
>>>>>> systemd-machine (machined,nspawn,importd)
>>>> We call that package "systemd-container", but it has exactly those, so
>>>> "check".
>> I think we (Fedora) should follow this, for inter-distro consistency.
> I prefer that name to systemd-nspawn. As Lennart's original comment on
> the systemd-machine package name suggestion was "the name of the daemon
> doesn't matter", I'd argue that the name of the binary also doesn't
> matter too much! After all, the "nspawn" itself doesn't mean anything
> unless you know what nspawn is, and if you know what it is, then you
> know what a container is, so the name systemd-container makes sense there.
> So +1 from me for that name as a general recommendation.
> Col

man 1 systemd-nspawn
"... In many ways it is similar to chroot(1)..."

Everyone knows what 'chroot' is, so "systemd-chroot" makes sense there, also.

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list