[systemd-devel] [PATCH] networkd: disable tmpfiles and sysusers bits associated with networkd

Lennart Poettering lennart at poettering.net
Mon Dec 1 15:35:00 PST 2014

On Mon, 24.11.14 09:30, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelmach at samsung.com) wrote:

> It was <2014-11-21 pią 21:36>, when Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Fri, 21.11.14 17:07, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelmach at samsung.com) wrote:
> >
> >> On a system configured without networkd and sysusers there still needs
> >> to be the unnecessary systemd-network user, otherwise systemd-tmpfiles
> >> fails to start.
> >> 
> >> Move information associated with networkd in tmpfiles.d and sysusers.d
> >> to separate files. Do not install it if netwrorkd is not enabled.
> >
> > In principle looks OK, but I'd prefer if we would write this out with
> > m4 (see etc.conf.m4) and keep it in the current files, rather than
> > split this up in numerous files.
> >
> > Especially in the case of /run/systemd/netif this actually matters: if
> > we split that out into its own tmpfiles snippet, then packagers would
> > most likely put that in its own RPM/DEB if they split out those
> > daemons. But this is not advisable in this case, as sd-network (which
> > will eventually be a public API of libsystems) needs the directory to
> > be around to install an inotify watch. If the directory doesn't exist,
> > and the API is used it will fail entirely, which is suboptimal, given
> > that networkd might be installed later on, and things should then just
> > start to work.
> Will it be necessary for this directory to be owned by systemd-network
> even without networkd?

Yes. If networkd is compile-time enable the dir should exist and be
properly owned, even if it networkd is split off into a separate
binary package and currently not installed.

Your patch in the version Zbigniew commited looks correct in this



Lennart Poettering, Red Hat

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list