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

Lennart Poettering lennart at poettering.net
Thu Nov 12 00:47:23 PST 2015

On Wed, 11.11.15 23:09, Michael Chapman (mike at very.puzzling.org) wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >During systemd.conf we have discussed some recommendation for
> >downstreams, how they could split systemd to subpackages, so lets
> >continue that discussion here.
> >
> >Personally I don't think it makes sense to split the package to get a
> >smaller core package. Most of our binaries are just few KBs. Only
> >exception here is /usr/lib/udev/hwdb.d which, on fedora rawhide, has
> >about 5,2 MB (15% of the whole package).
> >
> >Other aspect would be minimizing external dependencies. I have made a
> >list of libraries and which binaries pulls them in [1] and from that
> >point of view it would make sense to put follow binaries to subpackage:
> >systemd-pull
> >systemd-journal-gatewayd
> >systemd-journal-remote
> >systemd-journal-upload
> >systemd-firstboot
> >systemd-networkd
> Hi Lukáš,
> It seems like you're just looking at binaries at the moment, but I think
> some care needs to be taken with config files too.
> One gotcha I discovered in having networkd split out, and specifically in
> having 99-default.link in a subpackage, is that it can change the way
> predictable interface naming works, whether or not the networkd daemon is
> managing network interfaces. Udev's net_setup_link builtin consults the
> *.link files directly to determine the interface naming policy.
> We have to make sure the mere presence or absence of an otherwise-unused
> subpackage on a system doesn't change the system's behaviour too
> dramatically.

The .link files belong to udev, not networkd. It's that simple.


Lennart Poettering, Red Hat

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list