Re: Bug#727708: tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian.

[Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>]

On 10/31/2013 09:47 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:33:44 +0100 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> two places where to place systemd service files. One is located
>> below /usr/lib/systemd which is the directory where service files
>> provided by the package are placed, and one is /etc/systemd where
>> your own, custom service files are located.
> 
> If you created a custom local script, just to append something to the
> daemon's command line, is that going to clobber the package's service
> file indefinitely?
> 
> So if a new version or security update adds a "-s" flag telling the
> daemon to 'run in secure mode' your local definition might never pick
> that up?
> 
> In this situation, I think I'd prefer to see a conffile prompt.
> 
> And overriding the *entire* service file seems excessive if you wish to
> override just one line of the package's service file.

And also, systemd would be the only package behaving this way, which is
counter-intuitive for our users. I'd even go up to say this isn't policy
compliant (as configuration files must be in /etc).

On 10/31/2013 09:57 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:> On Thu, Oct
> You add a file /etc/systemd/system/xxx.service.d/yyy.conf with the
> following contents:
>
> [Service]
> SettingToOverride=whatever

Which doesn't fix the problem if SettingToOverride silently gets a new
"-s" option in /usr, to launch the daemon in its security mode, as
Steven described. Users would get no prompt at all, and will never know.

While I perfectly understand why things are this way in RedHat (eg: by
policy, all rpm stuff are non-interactive), I think this should be fixed
in Debian. We must have the systemd files stored somewhere in /etc. I
don't really understand why the systemd maintainers in Debian don't fix
that.

Would such patch be too hard to maintain? Is there some resistance
upstream for having the path of systemd files fixed, to be Debian policy
compliant (this would be very surprising considering they seem to care)?
Or is this the view of the systemd maintainers that it's perfectly fine
to violate the policy in this case?

Thomas