On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:49:21AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > The logic behind chkconfig is exposed in many ways in the user > interface, for example in the chkconfig command line, e.g. > commands such as "resetpriorities", and stuff like that. I think having some level of command-line user-interface compatiblity, even if not 100%, is important. "resetpriorities" is probably so rarely used that the systemd version of chkconfig could probably just make it a no-op (unless it was dealing with old sysvinit scripts, in which case it could probably just call through to the old chkconfig). But for basics such as "chkconfig service on|off|--list", there should be compatibility. Runlevels could perhaps be dealt with by mapping the common cases like 3,5 to the multiuser-target, graphical-target, etc. Likewise for "service foo start|stop|reload|condrestart" etc. > Jeez. I guess you cannot be helped. I guess it doesn't help in any way > here to mention that we were two steps ahead of you here and provide > "systemctl show" which can be used to introspect systemd units in all > details and properties in a parsable way. Also, we added "systemctl check" > which prints a one line super-short status. Well, there is some merit in the already stated argument for having good UI design. In this example, you could have used long-standing precedent of using -v -vv -vvv (or -q -qq -qqq, or --verbose=N) arguments instead of "status" "show" "check". Now you've created new lore of needing to know when to use "status" vs. "show" vs. "check", what the differences are between them, and what their order of increasing verbosity is. > But anyway, I give up. If you keep looking long enough you'll find > something you don't like in everything. Please don't give up. I think most of this is valid criticism that should be voiced, but that doesn't imply that the overall architecture and implementation of systemd isn't great. I like most of what I see, but I do cringe at some of the command, argument, and option naming choices that were made. And I think it is asking too much for users to have to know to use systemd-install for some things and chkconfig/service for others, not to mention needing to update all the RPM spec files for new scriptlets, or fixing anaconda to know when to call which (I'm guessing that anaconda might call chkconfig or service, but don't know for sure. Are you sure you know where all the skeletons are hiding?) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
