Re: init systems and Policy
On 27/03/12 07:20, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> It is not clear to me the status of similar policy work for systemd,
>> although I see that systemd maintainers are participating in
>> #591791. Again, if you're interested in Debian switch to systemd,
>> please contribute to that work rather than arguing on -devel.
>
> It's not entirely clear to me that we need any policy changes at all for
> packages to ship systemd unit files.
As far as I understand it, the particular feature of systemd that makes
it unproblematic to ship systemd unit files is that systemd will
normally run sysvinit scripts, but will ignore /etc/init.d/foo if it
sees a foo.service in its own format - so packages without specific
systemd support still work (systemd runs the sysvinit scripts) and
packages with a systemd unit file also work, without running the service
twice (it runs the systemd unit and ignores the corresponding sysvinit
script).
Ubuntu's version of debhelper includes changes to maintainer scripts to
avoid calling update-rc.d for sysvinit scripts when there is a
corresponding Upstart job, from which I infer that Upstart does not do
the same as systemd? If that's the case, then that's why Upstart needs
special and careful handling in Policy. It also makes Ubuntu's debhelper
patches unsuitable for use in Debian in their current form, since the
patch effectively assumes that if there is an Upstart job, it will be
run, and that's not true on non-Upstart systems.
I'm inclined to think Upstart's sysvinit compatibility layer should do
the same as systemd's, unless there's some compelling reason not to -
then specific support for systemd and/or Upstart would only require
adding /lib/systemd/system/foo.service and/or /etc/init/foo.conf, which
would automatically make the corresponding init implementation ignore
/etc/init.d/foo.
S
Reply to: