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
