On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 07:44:19PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 17.10.14 06:29, Josh Triplett ([email protected]) wrote: > > > This makes it possible to drop in logind configuration snippets from a > > package or other configuration management mechanism. > > > > Introduce a new helper, conf_parse_many, to parse configuration files in > > a search path. > > > > systemd now installs /usr/lib/systemd/logind.conf.d/50-default.conf > > rather than /etc/systemd/logind.conf . Distributions should migrate > > existing modified versions of /etc/systemd/logind.conf to > > /etc/systemd/logind.conf.d/50-default.conf . > > > > Move the logind.conf manpage to logind.conf.d, update it to document the > > search paths, and update all references to it. > > Humm.... > > I'd really prefer if we'd keep things in logind.conf and just provide > the option of using logind.conf.d. This would be similar to unit > files, where the unit files are where the beef is and .d/ is just a > way to override/extend is. THe man page of logind.conf should > reference the ability that .d/ files are supported, but that should be > it for the documentation. We should really try to not to be too > surprising here for admins which tend to expect one configuration > file, not many.
The main awkwardness there is that /etc/logind.conf, as a file in /etc, should be parsed *after* /usr/lib/systemd/logind.conf.d/ and *before* /etc/systemd/logind.conf.d/ , which breaks the usual logic to load all files in order with files in /etc overriding files in /usr. Suggestions? > Also, I'd really prefer if we could do the same for all configuration > files in /etc/systemd/*.conf, not just for logind.conf... I'd be happy to, but I wanted to sort out the pattern before expanding it to other cases. > An additional idea might be to document in the main config files as a > comment that extensions may be placed in the .d/ subdirs, to make this > functionality more discoverable? Yeah, if we keep logind.conf then it makes sense to document the .d/ variant there. > > For systemd, are "git format-patch -M" patches (with git-style renames > > rather than whole-file deletion/insertions) acceptable for mailing list > > review? That format makes renames much easier to review. > > Sure! Glad to hear that. - Josh Triplett _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
