On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 09:37:50PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ??? 1 novembre 2015 21:21 +0100, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> : > > >> > If nobody objects, I'd rather do that so that you don't have to add > >> > a specific if/elif/endif just for this. What do you think ? > >> > >> On the other hand, it is not really systemd-specific (and could be made > >> not Linux-specific if it wasn't using /proc/self/exe to find its own > >> name). It could be useful on other systems as well, as a way to turn > >> HAProxy into a "regular" daemon. It could also be used to simplify the > >> current init.d script. I could be renamed to just "haproxy-wrapper". > > > > Sure, I've thought the same, but always with the same question in the > > end : "for what purpose ?". If we provide binaries which provide useless > > features whose purpose cannot easily be explained to their users, probably > > the binary in question should not be there. If it provides a real benefit, > > then that's different, it's a matter of packaging choice and we should not > > remove it by default. Given that I never needed it and still failed to see > > a benefit outside of systemd, I'm inclined to think we don't need it, but > > I could be wrong. > > The current scripts work fine, so, yes, there is little interest in > adding a binary to do the same thing. It could be useful with other > supervisors (like supervisor, runit) or inside containers. > > I don't use it outside systemd either, so it was just an idea. It can be > removed from the default build until someone needs it outside systemd > (and provide the patches to make it generic).
Jérôme made me realize it was removed already, the issue was the install-bin target which was still trying to install it even when not built. So that's a fix instead. Cheers, Willy
