[systemd-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] Remove installation of symlinks in /etc
richard.maw at codethink.co.uk
Wed Feb 13 07:16:03 PST 2013
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:00:46PM +0000, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 13/02/13 00:21 did gyre and gimble:
> > On Mon, 11.02.13 16:34, Auke Kok (auke-jan.h.kok at intel.com) wrote:
> >> Contrary to it's own packaging guidelines, these symlinks are created
> >> in /etc/. While technically not a problem, this makes it harder
> >> for folks installing from git that want to override these settings
> >> (either masking or otherwise).
> >> Moving the links to $(systemunitdir) resolves.
> > I am not sure we really should do this. Both of these units should be
> > allowed to be disabled, and always telling people to mask them sounds a
> > bit too much...
> > Dunno, I am a bit split about this. I see where you are coming from, but
> > just making them static sounds like too simple...
> > (Also, if we make them static we'd drop the [Install] section, as that
> > would be pointless then...)
> > So, I am really unsure... Dunno... Opinions?
> As a compromise, how about dropping them from "make install", but then
> adding a new "make install-foo" rule that does install plus a few extra
> bits and bobs so that those building from git can get their working
> system easily without too much subsequent manual fiddling. Yes, this
> requires those building and running from git know about "install-foo"
> but I would hope such people are fairly competent and know at least
> roughly what they are doing before taking such action anyway....
> Obviously a better name than "foo" is needed. install-bootstrap?.
How about testing whether DESTDIR is set?
If it is then it's usually intended to be packaged later, while if it's
not set then it's installed directly onto the system, at which point you
will want it to provide a bootable systemd.
More information about the systemd-devel