On Thu, 20.05.10 15:17, Marius O ([email protected]) wrote: > > Are you sure you have something like rc.local? > > Yes, Arch has it... but with the mention of having a > rc.local.shutdown. Is there a way of defining a dependency between the > two (ie, if we start the service responsible for rc.local we should > run at shutdown time the rc.local.shutdow) ?
Hmm, this could be something you want to put in the ExecStop line in your service file then. > > And are you sure you need > > that stupid hack I have in there that establishes two names for rc.local > > because our symlink for that is so weird? (i.e. we have a symlink > > /etc/rc2.d/S99local → /etc/rc.local instead of /etc/rc2.d/S99rc.local). > > There's exactly /etc/rc.local, as Arch doesn't have the /etc/rcN.d > runlevel folders. Ah, so you have are not using the classic SysV layout? Are there no runlevels currently being used on ArchLinux? > > If you call /sbin/halt and friends directly you should be able to simply > > pass -f, and you won't need the RUNLEVEL=6 env hack then. (RUNLEVEL=6 is > > needed because sysvinit's halt is just one evil piece of code and our > > halt script on Fedora does not pass -f to halt). > > Ok. This sounds as a good idea. But as a side-note, wouldn't it be > nicer (even for Fedora) to use the base sysvinit executables directly > instead of defining distro specific workarounds ? ( I remember you > saying that you'd like to avoid that each distro use their own > services as much as possible) Well, for now we try to make systemd work as a drop-in replacement for sysvinit without modifying any of the old scripts. Later on we should certainly remove unncecessary cruft from them, and replace them with better, less hackish code.# Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
