At Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:33:57 +0100,
Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:38:38 +0100,
Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Michal Kubeček wrote:
On Tuesday 27 of November 2012 11:21EN, Ludwig
> The person decided to do it via shell hacks as it was
> quite common to do it that way back then. It's a good thing to get
> rid of such hacks and patch the features into daemon itself anyways,
> indepedent of whether or not systemd is used for booting.
As far as I can say from the proposed config, the features are actually
implemented in atd and the "hacks" just translate sysconfig variables to
command line parameters. Many init scripts do things like this as
daemons rarely parse /etc/sysconfig themselves.
So? We are talking about free software here. Add a few lines of C and
they do. No need to add shell wrappers.
True, but only if parsing (SUSE-specific) sysconfig variables is
acceptable for the upstream, too. In other words, if such a patch
won't be merged to the upstream, we'll need to carry over the patch
forever. It'd be much more pain than maintaining an init shell
I don't agree. Whether or not such a patch would be openSUSE specific is
also questionable. Looks like at least Fedora also wants to have atd
parameters configurable. Maybe upstream would be open to accepting a
patch for a global config file (in whatever format)? You will never find
out if you don't even ask and keep writing shell wrappers.
Sure, I don't mean to stick *only* with the init shell script. It's
broken for systemd, thus it must be fixed. No doubt about it. And
the fix should be done together with the upstream at best indeed.
However, a random patching in SUSE package can be rather a pain by
itself alone. As mentioned, it's often harder to maintain unless
accepted in the upstream.
So, the key is the collaborative fix with the upstream. It might be a
few lines of C code, but it needs lots of social tasks in addition.
The background I write this is that, honestly speaking, I can hardly
imagine that a SUSE-specific sysconfig is acceptable as a common
infrastructure over all distros. If I were to get a patch from a
Canonical guy to add a patch to parse Ubuntu's config file to any ALSA
util programs, I'd reject it :)
A typical and likely solution will be to introduce a new config file
in the end, with a hope that the downstream will follow to change
their tools like YaST for managing the new config file. This is a
cleaner solution, but takes a long long way...
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org