On Tue, 25.03.14 19:07, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: > > 2014-03-25 0:14 GMT+01:00 Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net>: > > On Mon, 24.03.14 23:59, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> I think the priority information is irrelevant in this particular > >> issue. It's the discrepancy regarding runlevel information. > >> > >> So I doubt your patch makes a difference, but I'll double check. > > > > I am tempted to also drop the runlevel parsing from the LSB and > > chkconfig headers. After all they are mostly irrelevant since what is > > linked in /etc/rc?.d/ is what matters, and not the stuff in the init > > script themselves. > > > > Let me now if this would make things work then for you. If so, I'll drop > > this too then. > > I think this might work, without having actually tested it. > That said, if you drop runlevel and priority parsing from the > chkconfig header, is there anything useful left in # chkconfig: ?
Nope, there wouldn't be. > > Regarding # pidfile:, it's basically the same problem, ie. the mere > existence (on Debian) doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. > The result could be, that we mark a service as Type=forking pointing > it at the wrong pid file, leading to the service not being tracked > properly. I'd have to check all packages affected by this [0], to see > if the information in there is actually correct. > > [0] http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%23+pidfile%3A I am pretty sure that this is something to fix in the init scripts rather than to drop entirely. the pidfile option is simply increadibly useful. I have now added a todo list item to drop chkconfig parsing entirely. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel