This is a new feature, but it depends on qemu, so I think it should not continue to be in the systemd-container package.
What do you think?
Splitting out subpackages has a non-negligible cost. It requires maintainer effort, but also creates a bit of mental overhead for the users. So we should do splits only when there’s good justification. Usually, when different parts are likely to be used separately and either the contents or dependencies are large. I don’t see a particular reason to split systemd-vmspawn out into a separate subpackage. If you can describe particular usecases which would benefit from this, we can reconsider.
systemd-vmspawn depends on qemu, do you mean we want to introduce qemu as a dependency for systemd-container?
Also I don’t see an obvious excessive amount of extra cost.
Yes. Most likely a soft dependency (Recommends).
The cost is there.
But that’s ridiculous, systemd-vmspawn has to require qemu, not installing it gives the user a broken systemd-vmspawn. But then systemd-nspawn users don’t need qemu. I don’t see a more logical way than separating the two.
Also the machinectl part comes as a “common” package.
You seem to think that every little bit of functionality needs to be split out into its own subpackage. We don’t do this because it’d create a usability nightmare.
Recommends is appropriate, because it means that normal user installations will pull in the dependency, because dnf defaults to installing weak dependencies.
I pushed commits to add Recommends to f40, f41, and rawhide now.
So you want nspawn users to install qemu as well?
As for me wanting to separate each functionality, machinectl is a part that is used by both nspawn and vmpawn and only makes sense as a common package.
Besides, nspawn and vmpawn use completely different techniques, so how is it “every little bit”?
You also didn’t explain how it became a nightmare. All I see is clearer dependencies and a more logical distribution of functionality.
Your last sentence sounds like you’re being contrary just to spite me, sorry if I’ve misinterpreted it. If I didn’t misunderstand, then this is childish.
I’ve heard this defence of yours from many package maintainers, and to sum it up, it’s just lazy. If the upstream is so lazy, then I have to be diligent as the downstream.
You’re not being diligent. You’re just making demands and not listening to the answers. After reading that I’m “lazy”, “childish”, “ridiculous”, “contrary”, and “spite[ful]”, excuse me if I don’t spend extra time to explain things again.
Even if I’m making a demand, a reasonable demand you don’t come and do it then I’ll do it myself, what’s the problem?
I don’t see you making any explanations, on the contrary I made explanations. All you’re doing is talking a bunch of grandstanding without actual substance, and to summarise, all I can see is that you’re saying you’re lazy. Since you’re lazy, I have to be diligent or the world will be dragged down by lazy people. And from what I’ve seen, there are quite a lot of lazy people.
Also you say you don’t have time to explain yourself to me, remove the fact that you haven’t explained yourself at all, I’m with you on the contrary, I welcome any criticisms and corrections, anyone reading this thread can reply and I’ll explain any replies.
i think there is issues on and you should talk it out together private not to here flooding the post
How can I show people my reasons for making this suggestion if I talk about it in private?
Sending it out is so others can see whose idea is better.
Criticism of work is most welcome in the community, but personal attacks are not. Please refrain from such comments on any community channels.
I’m not making a personal attack, and I hate personal attacks with a passion, but if you think it is, then you can find a better expression for someone who doesn’t want to put effort into doing something for little or no reason, and with all due respect to my stupidity, I can only think of the word LAZY.
The one above looks to be the maintainer, and if he doesn’t agree, my PR submission shouldn’t be accepted.
That is a personal attack and certainly, if this is how you go about it, I see no reason why people will accept your contributions/ideas here or elsewhere. Communities are about people first, the software and the rest comes later. There’s a way to disagree, and this is not it.
Besides, Zbigniew puts a lot of work into Fedora to make it work better.
Firstly I have no intention of personal attacks, secondly I abhor personal attacks, and lastly, even if my words are seen by all as a personal attack, then I would like to say that I do not have any intention of solving any problem by personal attacks.
If that counts as a personal attack, then I don’t know how to express the state that a person rejects other people’s reasonable suggestions without any reasonable explanation and says that he thinks it requires a lot of effort (even if it doesn’t actually require a lot of effort, because I’ve maintained software packages, too).
In fact I’m wondering about your logic, I’m just saying what his words are actually trying to convey and that’s me making a personal attack? Him saying he’s lazy makes it a personal attack?
If I say I’m stupid, surely you guys can call me stupid, because I said it first, and it certainly doesn’t count as you guys making a personal attack on me.
After that I’d like to say that since the maintainer didn’t accept the suggestion then I’ll do it myself, it’s supposed to be the way the open source community works and that’s fine.
Also you guys should have noticed that this is just a regular discussion post, not an issue, which means that I didn’t formally request it from the maintainer, he just made it too formal for his own good. This is just a place where I want to see what people think and finally consider whether to submit it as an issue or make changes myself as a downstream.
Finally, I would like to make it clear that I am not a native English speaker, and all my words I can only guarantee that they contain the meaning I want to convey; I cannot guarantee that the tone of voice is normal, the wording is reasonable, and there is no ambiguity, etc.
If there is, I can only apologise on behalf of my translator and my stupid brain. (Yes, now you can call me stupid.)
I have to make it clear that in our culture, “lazy” is a neutral word. It is not used as a curse, but only to describe a state of affairs of a person.
If you call me lazy, I will only say “I am indeed lazy”, it’s trivial.
But I can’t apologise for that, because I’m not in a position to apologise on behalf of my culture. I can only apologise for not knowing that calling someone lazy is a personal attack in your culture.
No, this is not what you’re doing.
This isn’t neutral—telling someone they’re the type that will drag the world down is hardly neutral.
Having said that, not assuming malice, I will accept your note about the cultural connotations of the word. I’m afraid “lazy” and other terms that you have used, like “childish”, are not neutral in many cultures. Please be aware of this while communicating on community channels. We’re an international community, and we hail from all over the world. That still means we must be careful of how we communicate because it may not have the same connotations in other cultures.
Finally: no, even if you called yourself stupid, we wouldn’t because that is not us being excellent towards you—which is what the Code of Conduct requires from all of us. Let’s please do better.
All I have to say about the word “lazy” is that it just means that a person doesn’t want to do something without any reason. That in itself is neutral, and if you don’t like the word lazy, I can replace it with the latter if it doesn’t bother you. But putting it in this sentence does take on some pejorative connotations, but it’s also true, everyone is lazy (doing nothing) then how is the world going to progress?
As far as childish, it does contain more pejorative connotations, but you can evaluate my use of words after you look at what he said.
I’ve already said that if I misunderstood him then I apologise, but he didn’t say that I did, in which case the behaviour is indeed childish, no doubt about it, and I even doubt that he’s qualified as a package maintainer.