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

Lennart Poettering lennart at poettering.net
Thu Nov 12 01:04:46 PST 2015

On Thu, 12.11.15 09:07, Lukáš Nykrýn (lnykryn at redhat.com) wrote:

> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek píše v Čt 12. 11. 2015 v 06:13 +0000:
> > I prepared a package for rawhide with [1,2] the following
> > subpackages:
> > systemd-journal-remote (remote, upload, gatewayd)
> > systemd-container (nspawn, machinectl, machined, importd, pull, var
> > -lib-machines.mount)
> > systemd-udev (udevd, udevadm, udev rules, hwdb).
> > 
> > The first two are uncontroversial (systemd-journal-remote already
> > existed
> > as systemd-journal-gateway for a long time).
> > The last is somewhat controversial: while people seem to agree about
> > the split,
> > it's not necessary clear whether udevd should be in the subpackage or
> > not.
> > I went with "yes", to see how that works out. I think this makes more
> > sense this way, but maybe not.
> I would like to see the hwdb in its own package. I can imagine a use
> -case where user wants to use udev, but wants to provide its own
> smaller hwdb (or hwdb.bin).

Sorry, I strongly disagree. There's no point in having the hwdb at
all, if you want a "smaller" one. This is a usecase that doesn't

Either you want generic support for all kinds of hw that might
possibly plugged into your system, or you control exactly the hw that
will show up and don't want the database, but in that case, you'd just
use a couple of udev rules as replacement and no hwdb, and that's
it. Having a "minimal" hwdb is non-sense, really.

There's no point in splitting this up too wildly really.


Lennart Poettering, Red Hat

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list