On Tue, 10.06.14 13:10, Dave Reisner (d...@falconindy.com) wrote: > Perhaps there's a middle ground we can find. Tom mentioned the idea of > a "package" mode during configuration. How about a simpler idea -- if > DESTDIR is empty, add the symlinks. Otherwise, don't.
This sounds fragile... people should get the same results if they avoid DESTDIR= or if they use it and then copy the result to /... I mean, that's how DESTDIR has been traditionally defined, and I don't think we should add any magic to that... > > Creating a couple of symlinks in /etc, and dropping a number of > > configuration files in, doesn't appear to be so much of a difference to > > me. Can you explain to me why we should depart from automake's > > traditional behaviour here, and wh symlinks should be something > > different from configuration files? > > Traditional configuration files have their own content. They can be > hashed and tracked by your package manager. On upgrade, you can make an > intelligent decision about what to do with the new file (replace, > ignore, merge) based on the original and current hash of the existing > file, and the has of the incoming file. > > Symlinks are more of a binary decision -- either they exist, or they > don't. But, they're still configuration in this context. There's no way > to track this on/off "bit", so distros (well, speaking of Arch) simply > nuke the symlinks and add back what they see as "sane defaults" during > installation (explicitly leaving the symlinks untracked). Symlinks should probably just be considered different type of file, that have a contents and stuff. The contents is usually a file name, and there's a size limit, but other than that it's just a magic kind of file, where the symlink destination is the conents. That's how git handles this, for example. I have the suspicion that this is really something to fix in your package manager. It should learn to handle symlink upgrades the same way as configuration file upgrades.... > > I mean, ideally we'd just invoke "systemctl preset" for these things, > > but for the sake of cross-compilation we can avoid this easily. > > > > We probably should ship make sure to ship the very same symlinks we > > create with "make install" with a preset file though... > > Yeah, this sounds prone to drift unless it could be generated from some > "master" list. Well, given that it's not a hundred symlinks, but just a few, I think having a list in the preset files and one in the makefile isn't too error-prone... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
