On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:28:36AM +0000, mick wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 20:51:50 -0600
> Doug Newgard <scimmia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:37:57 +0000
> > mick <bareman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 18:30:15 -0700
> > > Devon Smith <devo8604@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is there anything lacking in systemd
> > > A clear, logical and consistant naming convention for the services, units, etc used by systemd, on a number of occasions I have spent an hour or more looking for the script that controls a particular service. Admittedly there seems to be less of them now than when systemd first invaded. cups is a pet hate of mine, wouldn't 'cupsd' be much more intuitive than 'org.cups.cupsd.service' or am I missing something?
> >
> > Yeah, pacman -Ql <package> | grep service
> >
> > Should take significantly less than an hour.
> >
>
> Now that I know about it, but I still think cupsd.service is more intuitive.
That's why I still use Debian 5 stable in a container as a print server... Cups
2.0+ is a real piece of crap. And yes, these org.xxx.xxx names _are_ stupid
especially for filenames. But after using modern Fedoras, I think that systemd
services are no longer supposed to be managed manually, but rather through some
frontend...
Cheers,
--
Leonid Isaev
GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6 20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4
C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
