On 11/22/2011 10:16 AM, Ruediger Meier wrote:
On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 22/11/11 11:22, Ruediger Meier wrote:
On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 22/11/11 10:01, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Well. Most systemd service files are much easier to write than a sysv init script.
Significantly easier cleaner and shorter :) I take the lack of shell scripting as a feature ..;)
Almost all (if not all) config files in /etc/sysconfig are shell code.
Talking about other design errors .. we have those shell-style configuration files :-) you have no idea what people tries to do with them..
Creative admins can do a lot nice things everywhere they meet shell interpreted files. A lot more than setting static env vars.
after working for now around 5 years on this, I now consider them a bad thing(tm) most of that stuff should be in the respective daemon/service upstream configuration file.
Those btw.. are supported by systemd via the EnvironmentFile variable.
Are these files interpreted by shell. If yes which one is used?
cu, Rudi
Indeed. I have many config files with dynamic shell logic in them that makes things "just work" without having to hand-edit the file on different systems or after every software update. It makes them not merely more convenient but more reliable, more likely to work even if neglected or managed by unknowing monkey-admins, more robust all around, scale times NNN machines... "all such logic should be in the actual service" haha ignorant, no need to worry abut their opinion in this topic any more. Does systemd necessarily prevent this? I would doubt it but other than sysv I've only used upstart not systemd yet, and upstart did not prevent this. Worst possible case you might just need another layer of wrapper script right? Not the end of the world, but I can't believe it's actually necessary anyways. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org