[systemd-devel] abstracting chkconfig vs. update-rc.d [was: non-merged /usr changes]
lennart at poettering.net
Wed May 27 06:22:33 PDT 2015
On Wed, 27.05.15 15:17, Martin Pitt (martin.pitt at ubuntu.com) wrote:
> Hey Lennart,
> Lennart Poettering [2015-05-27 15:08 +0200]:
> > > /usr/lib/lsb/install_initd /etc/init.d/example.com-coffeed
> > > /usr/lib/lsb/remove_initd /etc/init.d/example.com-coffeed
> > >
> > > So we could make systemctl just call this if it's available, and
> > > otherwise do nothing for init.d scripts.
> > Sounds OK to use something like this, that already exists.
> > However, we actually need not only enabling/disabling, but also
> > "is-enabled" support, and idea on that?
> My current version of the patch keeps the chkconfig implementation for
> now; I suppose we don't want to needlessly enforce a lockstep
> situation where you can't use systemd git on Fedora until these
> scripts exist.
We barely have any init scripts left, this isn't really a big issue
hence. I think it's no problem to require an update in lockstep for
this for Fedora.
> LSB does not define an interface for checking whether an init.d script
> is enabled, and e. g. Debian's update-rc.d does not currently either
> We certainly know whether an init.d script is enabled, as we check
> exactly that in the sysv-generator (and if it's disabled we don't
> create a .service for it). However, right now the systemctl is-enabled
> command will just give you a "not supported with sysvinit" error with
I think it should be the hook that generates that error, not systemctl...
> > Also, I'd like to keep Lukas Nykryn in the loop on this, our
> > initscripts maintainer.
> Did you mean to CC: him?
That was my intention, and I could bet I did add him.
Lukas, I added you now, can you have a look at branch of the thread
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
More information about the systemd-devel