On Wed, 17.07.13 11:24, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: > > 2013/7/17 Michael Biebl <mbi...@gmail.com>: > > If this scheme is not flexible enough to cover the vast majority of > > all cases (for services), then I fear we'd end up half of the services > > using RuntimeDirectory, the other half a tmpfile. And that imho would > > be even more confusing. > > Could we have some stats from Fedora and/or Arch which have done a > (complete) migration to systemd, about how many services/packages > currently use a tmpfile and what they use in the tmpfile, i.e. if the > proposed scheme from Lennart would suffice say for 90+ % of them
Fedora is not completely converted, but here are some stats. The number of packages with tmpfiles: $ repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/*' --qf "%{name}" | sort -u | wc -l 59 The full list is here: http://ur1.ca/eonvl The number of packages with service files: $ repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/lib/systemd/system/*' --qf "%{name}" | sort -u | wc -l 602 The full list is here: http://ur1.ca/eonxq The number of holdouts with init scripts: $ repoquery --whatprovides '/etc/rc.d/init.d/*' --qf "%{name}" | sort -u | wc -l 167 This is highly misleading however as it is permitted by the fedora policy to continue sysv scripts if this is done in a separate package from the main one. Let's manually sort out these cases: $ repoquery --whatprovides '/etc/rc.d/init.d/*' --qf "%{name}" | sort -u | egrep -v '(-sysvinit|-initscript|-sysv)$' | wc -l 139 The full list is here: http://ur1.ca/eoo02 This means: ~81% of the packages have been converted from sysv to systemd. And ~10% of the converted packages make use of tmpfiles. Now, my rpm/yum-fu is a bit too limited to easily figure out what precisely they use of the tmpfiles functionality. This is Fedora 19. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel