Lennart Poettering [2015-05-26 18:36 +0200]: > /etc/locale.conf is not a fedoraism. It has not existed on Fedora > before we introduced it. It's a systemd'ism if you so will: we looked > at where the distros configured these things and came to the > conclusion that all them were weird and nothing we wanted to > support. We hence unified this in a new file. Except apparently that > DEbian wasn't willing to migrate :-(
Or let's say it hasn't happened yet. This is also commonly sourced by third-party/admin scripts, so doing that migration is the kind of "tons of work/zero visible benefit/nontrivial regression potential" thing that nobody likes to start doing. > I really don't see how the xorg.conf.d drop-in should be > fedora-specific. That's an upstream X11 thing, and we just picked a > name for the file and that's it. > > Are you saying Debian patched out supported for /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d? No, that of course works if it's present, but Debian wants to configure the keyboard layout for the console and other consumers too, and parsing Xorg config in kbd/console-setup would be rather weird. So Debian uses Xorg's udev support by default, which is essentially KERNEL=="event*", ENV{ID_INPUT_KEY}=="?*", IMPORT{file}="/etc/default/keyboard" Personally I find that rather elegant as it works for the console, Xorg, Wayland, Mir, etc, without assuming any particular configuration format for any of those. > > More intrusive is the removal of chkconfig and addition of > > update-rc.d: > > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/tree/debian/patches/Make-systemctl-enable-disable-call-update-rc.d-for-s.patch?h=experimental > > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/tree/debian/patches/systemctl-don-t-skip-native-units-when-enabling-disa.patch?h=experimental > > I offered to merge a patch that adds update-rc.d support side-by-side > with chkconfig support for this upstream, many times. Ah, you did? I must have missed that. > That said, I think even better would be to maybe make the support for > this generic in systemctl: instead of explicitly invoking chkconfig or > update-rcd, maybe we can just make systemctl invoke some fixed binary > /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-sysv-compat or so with a fixed set of > parameters. The distros could then make that a tool (maybe just a > shell script) that invokes chkconfig or update-rc.d This would then > allow us to remove any chkconfig-specific code from systemd, and would > allow all distros to plug-in the tool of their choice without having > to patch upstream. What do you think? That sounds great. If chkconfig and update-r.cd are/were the only two contenders then #ifdef sounds easier, but I don't know about other distros like e. g. Gentoo. > > Then we have some stupid stuff like > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/tree/debian/patches/buildsys-Don-t-default-to-gold-as-the-linker.patch?h=experimental-220 > > which got rejected, but are nevertheless still necessary on distros > > (and not only for us, see responses to [2]) > > Well, there's no need to carry a patch for that, all you need is add a > configure cmdline param, no? Maybe, I haven't checked. This is the kind of patch which rebases for years without trouble :-) > Also, this is really just working around issues with gold, and > craziness in the suse build system. I am pretty sure bugs should be > fixed wherever they are Yes, agreed. TBH, I wasn't blaming you for not taking this (or the other stuff above), just explaining what kind of "nasty real-life s***" patches distros have to deal with as you seemed surprised about their number. It's still better to keep upstream clean of hacks. > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/tree/debian/patches/Fix-paths-in-man-pages.patch?h=experimental-220 > > Not enthusiastic about the idea. But the XML magic is mostly > Zbigniew's territory (as this long got more complex than my XML-fu can > still grasp ;-)). Heh; I had a quick look and I'm not sure how/where to define new entities. I'll have a closer look when I'm bored (so, maybe in 5 years or so :-) ). Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel