It was <2014-11-21 pią 21:36>, when Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 21.11.14 17:07, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote: > >> On a system configured without networkd and sysusers there still needs >> to be the unnecessary systemd-network user, otherwise systemd-tmpfiles >> fails to start. >> >> Move information associated with networkd in tmpfiles.d and sysusers.d >> to separate files. Do not install it if netwrorkd is not enabled. > > In principle looks OK, but I'd prefer if we would write this out with > m4 (see etc.conf.m4) and keep it in the current files, rather than > split this up in numerous files. > > Especially in the case of /run/systemd/netif this actually matters: if > we split that out into its own tmpfiles snippet, then packagers would > most likely put that in its own RPM/DEB if they split out those > daemons. But this is not advisable in this case, as sd-network (which > will eventually be a public API of libsystems) needs the directory to > be around to install an inotify watch. If the directory doesn't exist, > and the API is used it will fail entirely, which is suboptimal, given > that networkd might be installed later on, and things should then just > start to work.
Will it be necessary for this directory to be owned by systemd-network even without networkd? -- Łukasz Stelmach Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics
pgpii7s5h9dwS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
