Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Thanks for applying my previous patch.
>
> Attached you can find another patch for dh_installinit. Quote from the
> commit message:
>
> dh_installinit: call systemd-tmpfiles with the config file names
>
> This makes the invocation more specific and thus le
Hi Joey,
Thanks for applying my previous patch.
Attached you can find another patch for dh_installinit. Quote from the
commit message:
dh_installinit: call systemd-tmpfiles with the config file names
This makes the invocation more specific and thus less likely to have any
unwant
Hi Joey,
Here is another patch which I’d like you to apply. Quote from the commit
message:
[PATCH] systemd: update check to look for /run/systemd/system
The old check (for /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd) is a false-positive on
systems which use standalone logind, but not systemd.
The new one is recomme
Hi Joey,
Joey Hess writes:
>> No, there isn’t. In other words: If debhelper can do it, you can skip
>> the boilerplate unless the package ships any files in /etc/tmpfiles.d or
>> /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d.
>
> Obviously debhelper can do it, it just needs to be split out into a
> separate autoscript tha
Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi Joey,
>
> Joey Hess writes:
> > This is applied. However, I wonder about this part of it:
> Thanks for applying! Is there a rough time estimate on when the next
> version of debhelper will be released?
After the release.
> > This is a lot of boilerplate to add to
Hi Joey,
Joey Hess writes:
> This is applied. However, I wonder about this part of it:
Thanks for applying! Is there a rough time estimate on when the next
version of debhelper will be released?
> This is a lot of boilerplate to add to every init script in Debian.
> Is there any reason to add th
Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> I talked to mbiebl and Mithrandir about it and we’ve come to the
> conclusion that we want to ship the files in /lib instead (for
> consistency with upstream packages and other distributions) and maybe
> work on UCF support for this location instead of shipping the servi
Hi Joey, hi Gergely,
On 24.10.2012 16:18, Joey Hess wrote:
> Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> Another option could perhaps be to ship the files in /lib, but instead
>> of relying on UCF or some other kind of mechanism to fiddle with the
>> symlinks in /etc, ship files there too. Files that do nothing but
>>
Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Another option could perhaps be to ship the files in /lib, but instead
> of relying on UCF or some other kind of mechanism to fiddle with the
> symlinks in /etc, ship files there too. Files that do nothing but
> .include the file in /lib.
>
> Things like:
>
> .include /lib/s
Michael Stapelberg writes:
> Hi Joey,
>
> Thanks for the quick review.
>
> Joey Hess writes:
>> The only questionable part seems to be the direct use of of
>> /etc/systemd/system/. Is there a consensus that this is the right thing
>> to do? I see symlinks being dropped in there by many packages
Hi Joey,
Thanks for the quick review.
Joey Hess writes:
> The only questionable part seems to be the direct use of of
> /etc/systemd/system/. Is there a consensus that this is the right thing
> to do? I see symlinks being dropped in there by many packages
> currently.
I talked to mbiebl and Mith
Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> attached you can find a patch which adds support for systemd packaging
> in dh_installinit, just like upstart is already supported.
>
> The patch installs systemd files to /etc/systemd/system/ (see the patch
> for rationale) and tmpfiles to /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d. Addition
Package: debhelper
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hello,
attached you can find a patch which adds support for systemd packaging
in dh_installinit, just like upstart is already supported.
The patch installs systemd files to /etc/systemd/system/ (see the patch
for rationale) and tmpfiles to /usr/l
13 matches
Mail list logo
