[systemd-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] Remove installation of symlinks in /etc

Kok, Auke-jan H auke-jan.h.kok at intel.com
Tue Feb 12 13:35:05 PST 2013

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Colin Guthrie <gmane at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and Umut Tezduyar at 12/02/13 12:00 did gyre and gimble:
>> If I am not mistaken, moving "getty at tty1.service" and "remote-fs.target"
>> to $systemunitdir will cause them to be shown as "disabled" on
>> "systemctl status .unit" even though they are enabled. These unit files
>> have "[Install]" sections and when there is "[Install]" section on them,
>> systemd will look for a symbolic link in /etc to determine if the unit
>> is enabled/disabled.
>> If the mentioned unit files are moving to $systemunitdir, then their
>> [Install] section needs to be removed as well so systemd can treat them
>> as "static" unit files.
> Should we not just drop them completely?
> AFAIK, most distros don't ship those files but instead recreate them in
> %post install scripts. Certainly, I've created distro-wide rpm-lint
> rules that prevents any package from shipping any files inside
> /etc/systemd/system/ (links or real units), and ditto for udev rules
> etc. I'm very much trying to promote a tidy /etc these days :)

Eventually we can, and I would support that.

I was thinking of keeping them around since a lot of source-based
folks will not spot the difference and distros and SAs can now mask
them out and use an unpatched upstream release.

Either way fine with me, I just want them removed from /etc in the end.


More information about the systemd-devel mailing list