Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (267 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] package looking for maintainer: the AT daemon
  • From: Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:23:08 +0100
  • Message-id: <>
Christian Boltz wrote:
Am Dienstag, 27. November 2012 schrieb Ludwig Nussel:
Christian Boltz wrote:
Am Montag, 5. November 2012 schrieb Ralf Lang:
Am 04.11.2012 16:40, schrieb Christian Boltz:
I just fixed this - atd.service now contains:
ExecStart=/bin/bash -c '[ -e /etc/sysconfig/atd ] && .
/etc/sysconfig/atd; exec /usr/sbin/atd $${ATD_BATCH_INTERVAL:+-b

(should I have added a comment "# looks ugly, but works"? ;-)

I don't think the above is in the spirit of systemd.

That's very visible when you look at the ExecStart line ;-) and is also
the reason why I asked if I should have added the "looks ugly, but
works" comment ;-)

The motivation behind this change was simple - fix the bug "settings in
/etc/sysconfig/atd are ignored" (which was a regression by switching to
a service file). I never said I like this solution, but it works ;-)

This is really a question of policy to me. Do we want to pollute
.service files with such /bin/bash constructs? If the shell wrapper is
inevitable it could be implemented in a regular file just as well
(/usr/sbin/atd_systemd_wrapper or something like that). That would at
least keep both the .service file and the script readable and avoids
quoting issues. Or just keep the working init script and admit that the
software isn't ready for the new world order yet.
I wonder why the broken .service file was added to atd in the first


(o_ Ludwig Nussel
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
16746 (AG Nürnberg)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups