On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 22:13 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > 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. Mostly I agree. Just a small modification: we don't really have to care about how often the commands are used *now*, just whether they would make any sense at all with systemd. resetpriorities clearly wouldn't, so with a full systemd system, resetpriorities should simply print an informational message to the effect that it's an absurd command. With a mixed system where systemd is still handling some old-school sysvinit scripts, it should reset the priorities of those. > > 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?) Right. Please try to take the constructive bits from the criticism, Lennart, and just leave the rest. You don't need to engage with it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
