On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 14:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:22:50AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > > > Believing what I read at Arch-general mailing list, configuring systemd > > > will be in some kind of irrational secret language. > > > > An example: > > [Unit] > > Description=[u] Static Interface [%I] > > StopWhenUnneeded=true > > Wants=network.target > > Before=network.target > > BindTo=sys-subsystem-net-devices-%i.device > > After=sys-subsystem-net-devices-%i.device > > After=basic.target > > So this is a standard INI-style configuration format. It's used > by a lot of software since it's clear and simple. > > > I see that %I is supposed to stand for eth0; how do I connect this > > with eth0? > > Don't know about this specific case, but presumably it's a generic > template which can be resused for multiple network interfaces. > > systemd has lots of legitimate criticisms, but its configuration > file format is not one of them. A straightforward declarative > format is vastly more robust and maintainable than a motley > collection of imperative shell scripts. There's simply no > argument on that point. If we could use the same (or a subset) > of the format in sysvinit, I'd certainly look at that. > > > Regards, > Roger
Hi Roger :) on Arch-General there's a discussion on a state that I can't say if some people are serious or ironically [1]. However, some misunderstandings are clarified :). E.g. we don't need to use "Before" and "After", we just need to use one of them. Regards, Ralf [1] This is just one thread about systemd, there are several threads. Btw. no flame war, we're sometimes unkind, but nothing more. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [arch-general] Systemd : Analysis of reactions of Users Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:13:42 -0500 On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM, M. wrote: > On 26/07/12 16:35, N. wrote: > >> The 26/07/12, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 11:57 +0200, D. wrote: >>> >>> By the way ... >>>> >>> ... is there the need to improve something that already works >>> >> As I've already said, it does NOT work. Systems based on init scripts >> are BROKEN because some of them scripts won't give you any chance to >> catch all the failures. >> >> Instead of fixing such problems we need something new that's broken too? > NEW IS ALWAYS BETTER -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343324193.2075.10.camel@precise
