Bug#949690: debian-policy: "service unit should have the same name as the package" seems too strong
Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> writes:
> If a package has a single system service with a systemd service unit,
> and the system service's name does not match the package's name, current
> Policy implies that this is probably a (non-RC) bug.
> I think that's too strong. In particular, because the name of the service
> unit is part of the "API surface" of the system service, aligning the
> name of the service unit with the name used by upstream is usually
> more important than aligning it with the name of the Debian package,
> unless the name used by upstream results in conflicts or is otherwise
> poorly-chosen. This is analogous to the names of executables in the PATH
> and the SONAMEs of libraries, both of which we try not to change.
Ah, hm, yes, that's a good point that I didn't notice when copying that
Policy recommendation over from the recommendations on init scripts.
The obvious concern here is that multiple packages could use the same
service name, and making the service name match the package name reduces
that risk considerably. But I think I agree that staying consistent with
upstream is more important than adopting that policy in a strong sense.
Do you have a suggestion for alternative wording? I think we still need
to say something about matching the name of the init script if any, and if
upstream doesn't provide a service unit, it seems reasonable to use the
name of the package (but maybe that should be encouraged rather than
recommended?).
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: