[systemd-devel] Archlinux patch for services and getty
lennart at poettering.net
Thu May 20 09:27:48 PDT 2010
On Thu, 20.05.10 15:17, Marius O (marius at habarnam.ro) wrote:
> > Are you sure you have something like rc.local?
> Yes, Arch has it... but with the mention of having a
> rc.local.shutdown. Is there a way of defining a dependency between the
> two (ie, if we start the service responsible for rc.local we should
> run at shutdown time the rc.local.shutdow) ?
Hmm, this could be something you want to put in the ExecStop line in
your service file then.
> > And are you sure you need
> > that stupid hack I have in there that establishes two names for rc.local
> > because our symlink for that is so weird? (i.e. we have a symlink
> > /etc/rc2.d/S99local → /etc/rc.local instead of /etc/rc2.d/S99rc.local).
> There's exactly /etc/rc.local, as Arch doesn't have the /etc/rcN.d
> runlevel folders.
Ah, so you have are not using the classic SysV layout? Are there no
runlevels currently being used on ArchLinux?
> > If you call /sbin/halt and friends directly you should be able to simply
> > pass -f, and you won't need the RUNLEVEL=6 env hack then. (RUNLEVEL=6 is
> > needed because sysvinit's halt is just one evil piece of code and our
> > halt script on Fedora does not pass -f to halt).
> Ok. This sounds as a good idea. But as a side-note, wouldn't it be
> nicer (even for Fedora) to use the base sysvinit executables directly
> instead of defining distro specific workarounds ? ( I remember you
> saying that you'd like to avoid that each distro use their own
> services as much as possible)
Well, for now we try to make systemd work as a drop-in replacement for
sysvinit without modifying any of the old scripts. Later on we should
certainly remove unncecessary cruft from them, and replace them with
better, less hackish code.#
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
More information about the systemd-devel