]] Ian Jackson
> Michael Stapelberg writes ("Re: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981:
> ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH"):
> > Hi Ian,
> > > Would you accept a patch to fix this problem in Debian's systemd (of
> > > course, I think it would be better if such a thing went upstream
> > > whether right away or eventually).
> >
> > No. Just like in our previous conversation in #732157 (the SIGSTOP
> > feature request), I am personally not at all interested in carrying any
> > significant features in Debian’s systemd package. Those should all go
> > upstream. My rule of thumb for this is: will people have to think “Ugh,
> > should this run on Debian? Then I need to do $x differently.” when
> > writing service files?
>
> Please reconsider, or alternatively try to get Debian policy changed.
> As matters stands it seems to me that policy would appear to imply the
> behaviour I'm requesting here. Without it, the commands in systemd
> unit files cannot comply with policy.
No, it talks about shell scripts, and more specifically package
maintainer scripts. Systemd units are not shell scripts.
> Tollef writes:
> > You could make the case for lots of other bits:
>
> That the goal (of honouring the system administrator's things in
> /usr/local) is incompletely achieved (either due to lack of effort, or
> due to difficulty coming up with good solutions) is not an excuse for
> failing to implement it when it's easy.
I don't think putting a file in /usr/local implies «use this in
preference to the one in /usr in all cases», which seems to be what
you're implying it means.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
