On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > Those service files appear to be mostly a 1:1 copy of my Fedora files > but I am quite sure that there are certain differences between Arch and > Fedora that make some of those scripts redundant.
Yes, they were kept as basic as possible to provide a starting point for other contributors, but I guess that things are rolling a bit too fast and it's too early to expect much interest in this. > > Are you sure you have something like rc.local? Yes, Arch has it... but with the mention of having a rc.local.shutdown. Is there a way of defining a dependency between the two (ie, if we start the service responsible for rc.local we should run at shutdown time the rc.local.shutdow) ? > And are you sure you need > that stupid hack I have in there that establishes two names for rc.local > because our symlink for that is so weird? (i.e. we have a symlink > /etc/rc2.d/S99local → /etc/rc.local instead of /etc/rc2.d/S99rc.local). There's exactly /etc/rc.local, as Arch doesn't have the /etc/rcN.d runlevel folders. > > If you call /sbin/halt and friends directly you should be able to simply > pass -f, and you won't need the RUNLEVEL=6 env hack then. (RUNLEVEL=6 is > needed because sysvinit's halt is just one evil piece of code and our > halt script on Fedora does not pass -f to halt). Ok. This sounds as a good idea. But as a side-note, wouldn't it be nicer (even for Fedora) to use the base sysvinit executables directly instead of defining distro specific workarounds ? ( I remember you saying that you'd like to avoid that each distro use their own services as much as possible) > > And "prefdm" I am pretty sure is a Fedora-ism and probably something we > should get rid of entirely in the end. If you have no reason for prefdm > then get rid of it. > Yes, you are right. Also I'm thinking that this service is a bit higher level than there should be included in a vanilla install. I imagine that the focus should be on having services for just runlevel 3 (plus systemd required ones - as dbus). > In summary: rc-local.service, sysinit.service, prefdm.service, > killall.service are probably very much Fedora-specific. If you don't > have counterparts in Arch for those then you should just drop those > scripts, there is no reason to provide them. The only three services you > need to provide in the arch directory are reboot.service, halt.service > and poweroff.service because they are directly referenced in the > respective .target files. Ok. It makes sense. But I think that the killall service should exist as a method for sending sigterm and sigkill to all running processes. As an idea it could be split this task to two services: termall.service (killall5 -15) and killall.service (killall5 -9). > Also, I have since changed quite a few unit files, so you might want to > update your patch for those changes! Ok I will update according to your suggestions and submit again. Thank you for the feedback. -Marius _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
