On Sun, 2024-10-13 at 23:27 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > [...] > Let me amend that paragraph a bit. > > Since it’s apparently needed for autopkgtests and stuff, > perhaps working together we can do precisely that (same > level of support), and I’d argue that the people who argued > that it is not the right way had 6+ years and multiple > debbugs, some with explicit mentions and RFHs, to respond, > and at this point I’m ok with just doing what we already do > for sysvinit. > > I personally cannot write or test systemd anything, I refuse > to let the Poettering stuff on my systems. I’ve worked on > some other packages where initialisation stuff was shared > between systemd stuff and sysvinit, and the seemingly most > agreeable way to do that was to put the actual code into a > shell script under /usr/lib*/ and to call that from both. > (Calling the sysvinit script from the systemd thing, or the > other way round, was deemed unpalatable.)
As I read chapter 9 of the Debian policy [1] shell scripts can even go into /usr/share/<package>. > > So, if I were to move most of the functionality out into a > script, will you, or someone else, do the systemd side and > test it? (Best before uploading, as we might need a round or > two of iterating before deciding on how to exactly call that > script.) This is, assuming start-stop-daemon is still fine to > use on systemd-using systems. (But the unit generator likely > did just that, so it’d be at least no regression.) I am happy to help. Actually, I did the same job for the dnsmasq package, however without reusing the start-stop-daemon calls. I should be able to set up a personal repo under salsa.d.o to share with you. I'll come back to you on this after having finished my current work. Sven [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html, first bullet point. -- GPG Fingerprint 3DF5 E8AA 43FC 9FDF D086 F195 ADF5 0EDA F8AD D585
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
