On Mon, 24.03.14 17:17, Michael Biebl ([email protected]) wrote: > > 2014-03-24 17:11 GMT+01:00 Lennart Poettering <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, 24.03.14 14:00, Michael Biebl ([email protected]) wrote: > > > >> Don't parse Red Hat style chkconfig headers if chkconfig support is > >> disabled via --disable-chkconfig. > > > > Hmm, I am not overly hapy with adding even more ifdefs to the > > code... i'd rather see less ifdefs... > > I can rip out the chkconfig parsing completely, if that is what you > want.
Nah, we need to keep it in for fedora/rhel I figure, for now. > > > Thus, what's the rationale here? Why shouldn't the chkconfig header be > > read when it exists? I mean, stuff like the description string really > > shouldn't hurt on debian either, should an init script carry the > > header... > > The reasoning here is, that on distributions which don't use chkconfig > (like Debian), there might be SysV init scripts with chkconfig headers > which are completely untested and actually break the boot process. See > [0] for an example. > We really shouldn't parse chkconfig headers on distros which don't > support chkconfig and decided to build systemd with > --disable-chkconfig. Well, but we are a lot more dependent on correct headers than other parsers anyway... For example, the LSB deps have traditionally been much less accurately followed than they are now... I mean, we don't claim compatibility with scripts with broken headers, anyway... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
