systemd-boot (Re: PR: fsateler/coredump)

[Julian Andres Klode]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:55:08AM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 7 October 2015 at 09:31, Michael Biebl <biebl at debian.org> wrote:
> > Afaics, that's about 200K. So yeah, I could live with having those
> > shipped in the systemd package.
> >
> >  and bootctl is useful on its
> >> own, even for people not using systemd-boot (it shows the
> >> boot configuration).
> >
> >> You could keep that in the systemd package itself, and still
> >> run bootctl update in systemd's postinst script, as that does
> >> no harm, it only updates existing bootloader copies in the
> >> ESP (unfortunately, only one, with a fixed path, instead of
> >> supporting all non-removable ESPs).
> >
> > I mentioned splitting of systemd-boot since that is what I recalled when
> > we spoke about that at debconf. You mentioned some additional scripts
> > you wrote for gummiboot and that those should not be shipped in the
> > systemd binary package.
> 
> 200k here and there end up adding up. Was there talk about splitting
> up the existing systemd package up so that minimal images can be
> (more) minimal?
> In particular, I'm thinking about stuff not needed on containers, so
> that the base system image size can be minimized.
> 

That's a sort of valid argument. Although this whole splitting
up is a bit annoying me:

I'm wondering if it makes sense to have some sort of systemd
meta package. I recently wondered very long where machinectl
was when I wanted to try machinectl shell...

Or have a systemd-core package containing only what's needed
to bring up a system, and make the systemd package larger.

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

Be friendly, do not top-post, and follow RFC 1855 "Netiquette".
    - If you don't I might ignore you.