On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 04/08/2013 02:33 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Frederic Crozat <fcrozat@suse.com> wrote:
- rcxxx symlinks were not part of sysvinit, it is yet another SUSE extension.
Yes and we should carry it, because many of our users are still using it. Removing it just for the sake of removing it is absurd.
Not only that, rc scripts, when scripts and not just symlinks,
As far as I am concerned is just a bunch of confusing unnecesary hacks that people apparently have an emotional attachment to.
Strip emotional, because that adjective is added by you without base of fact. You cannot know whether the attachment is emotional or of some other kind, since you do not share it. But there is attachment, and attachment to some workflow must not be ignored, for it usually means it's a good workflow at some level. That the mistake, that is happening all over the place, with Gnome3 for instance, but not only, and is creating all sorts of uproar. Because people's workflow attachments are meaningful, no matter what an "enlightened developer" might think. In this case, as rcscript functionality gets broken more and more by symlinking to systemctl, yeah, attachment will end up being emotional in the end, because none of the functionality that made it a rational kind of attachment remains. But the point is, that when rc scripts add functionality, that is good, especially notably because people's attachment to them proves it's good. And notice the conditiona. *When rc scripts add functionality*. By symlinking to systemctl, the only functionality left in them are as an alias. Might be a good functionality to keep if that prevents sysadmin scripts from breaking, but it's far less valuable than being able to quickly interact with services in a more complex manner than systemd understands.
Currently service much more than "running", "stopped".. the can be activated (and stopped) in a variety of ways.
Not sure what you mean here.
And by extended status I mean something beyond systemd's "yeah, I started it - it ought to be running". Just try rcapparmor status on 12.2 to see how useless asking systemctl is.
apparmor has to be hooked up to systemd the same way they other LSMs already are, nobody has done the required work though (unlike redhat or intel that paid people to do the work upstream)
Ok, maybe an LSM does indeed need to be supported by systemd specifically. But how does this rationale apply to other stuff? Just for an example I had to search for among all rc scripts... "rcntp ntptimeset". -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org