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

Kok, Auke-jan H auke-jan.h.kok at intel.com
Wed Feb 13 09:07:53 PST 2013

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Richard Maw
<richard.maw at codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

I'd actually argue that if DESTDIR is empty we're overwriting SA files
in /etc/, without the SA being able to prevent it.


More information about the systemd-devel mailing list