On Mon, 20.10.14 11:28, j...@joshtriplett.org (j...@joshtriplett.org) wrote:
> > I'd really prefer if we'd keep things in logind.conf and just provide > > the option of using logind.conf.d. This would be similar to unit > > files, where the unit files are where the beef is and .d/ is just a > > way to override/extend is. THe man page of logind.conf should > > reference the ability that .d/ files are supported, but that should be > > it for the documentation. We should really try to not to be too > > surprising here for admins which tend to expect one configuration > > file, not many. > > The main awkwardness there is that /etc/logind.conf, as a file in /etc, > should be parsed *after* /usr/lib/systemd/logind.conf.d/ and *before* > /etc/systemd/logind.conf.d/ , which breaks the usual logic to load all > files in order with files in /etc overriding files in /usr. Well, as for units the main file should be read first (taking the /usr+/etc override logic into account), and only then we should read the .d/ drop-ins (individually following the /usr+/etc override logic). THis is what we do for unit files too. .d/ in this context really are supposed to be for overrding and extending, and hence reading the .d/ snippets in /usr after the main confi file from /etc is the right thing to do I believe. Ultimately the difference really shouldn#t matter too much I think. After all the version in /usr is for vendor defaults, and the stuff in /etc for user overrides. .d/ are for overrding hence mostly make sense in /etc only really, and should be the total exception in /usr. Thanks, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
