Am 07.10.2012 19:29, schrieb Dave Reisner: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 06:49:46PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: >> Tom and I discussed this on IRC, so I'll just throw it in here. >> >> I'd like to make the following changes to our packages: >> >> * Remove initscripts and sysvinit from the base group. >> * Add systemd-sysvcompat to the base group. > > I'd really like to get rid of the /bin/systemd symlink if we're going to > do this. I suppose it can just be part of the news item we post.
Why did you even introduce this symlink in the first place? Why did you not remove this symlink _before_ we told everyone to use init=/bin/systemd on their command line? If you knew this symlink was going to disappear eventually, why not tell everyone to use init=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd from the beginning? (Not trying to be rude, I really need a history lesson on this.) >> As not all packages are equipped with systemd units yet, a compatibility >> layer exists: You can install the initscripts package, which does not >> depend on sysvinit any longer (and thus doesn't conflict with >> systemd-syscompat). A new initscripts installation will come with an >> empty DAEMONS array by default. Once you add rc.d scripts to DAEMONS, >> systemd will generate compatibility units for those services, or enable >> the systemd unit if a unit with the same name exists. > > This "compatability" layer is still a mess with packages shipping rc.d > files which don't match up with the unit file name. I proposed a > solution for this in initscripts that involved keeping a static list of > exceptions in arch-daemons rather than peppering packages with symlinks > full of lies, and it appears that nothing has been done yet. This > _must_ to be fixed first. In the current status, only a small number of people will even need it, and they will only specify services which do not have a unit at all - and nothing is broken there. I don't really see the problem - can't we expect our users to gradually remove the compatibility DAEMONS over time? Do we really have to hold their hands? Can you give a link to your proposed patches? I am really not against improving this, I just don't see it as a showstopper.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
