On 27/03/12 07:20, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> It is not clear to me the status of similar policy work for systemd, >> although I see that systemd maintainers are participating in >> #591791. Again, if you're interested in Debian switch to systemd, >> please contribute to that work rather than arguing on -devel. > > It's not entirely clear to me that we need any policy changes at all for > packages to ship systemd unit files.
As far as I understand it, the particular feature of systemd that makes it unproblematic to ship systemd unit files is that systemd will normally run sysvinit scripts, but will ignore /etc/init.d/foo if it sees a foo.service in its own format - so packages without specific systemd support still work (systemd runs the sysvinit scripts) and packages with a systemd unit file also work, without running the service twice (it runs the systemd unit and ignores the corresponding sysvinit script). Ubuntu's version of debhelper includes changes to maintainer scripts to avoid calling update-rc.d for sysvinit scripts when there is a corresponding Upstart job, from which I infer that Upstart does not do the same as systemd? If that's the case, then that's why Upstart needs special and careful handling in Policy. It also makes Ubuntu's debhelper patches unsuitable for use in Debian in their current form, since the patch effectively assumes that if there is an Upstart job, it will be run, and that's not true on non-Upstart systems. I'm inclined to think Upstart's sysvinit compatibility layer should do the same as systemd's, unless there's some compelling reason not to - then specific support for systemd and/or Upstart would only require adding /lib/systemd/system/foo.service and/or /etc/init/foo.conf, which would automatically make the corresponding init implementation ignore /etc/init.d/foo. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f71796d.9030...@debian.org