On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:43:45 +0200 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 20:40, Lennart Poettering (mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx) > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > > > > to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.). > > > > > > > > but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with > > > > an abstract computer object. > > > > > > Dave, I am not a native speaker, but I have the exact (or may be > > > even worse) problem. For as much as I try the syntax there is so > > > obscure I cannot "realize" what it means *at all*, just by > > > looking at it. > > > > > > > > > Lennart, "realize" really is a bad bad bad choice, please consider > > > changing it while there is still time. > > > > Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install > > into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll > > drop some of the options --realize had, and always imply that the > > init system configuration shall be reloaded after all changes took > > place. This basically means that this > > is what will be done in %post in the general case: > > Kay and I discussed that even further now and decided to scrap --now > entirely now. There's little reason left to keep this as flag around. > I think it is more descriptive to do this on %preun: > > systemctl stop postfix.service > systemctl disable postfix.service > > then it would be to do this: > > systemctl disable --now postfix.service. > > Especially for "enable" this is even more the case, since depending > on the case you might or might not want to restart, or reload the > service on package upgrade. For example, restarting D-Bus or the > gettys on package uprgade would be a really bad idea, but restarting > ntpd might be a good idea. Given that packagers would have to > specifiy anyway whether they want to reload, or restart or nothing at > all a service on upgrade we think it would make more sense if they > simply delcare their choice explicitly and do either one fo this in > %post: > > systemctl enable foobar.service > systemctl try-restart foobar.service ### restart if running > > or: > > systemctl enable foobar.service > systemctl reload foobar.service ### reload if running > > or just: > > systemctl enable foobar.service > > or, for debian folks which want to start services after package > installation: > > systemctl enable foobar.service > systemctl restart foobar.service ### restart if runnning, > start if not running > > I think this scheme is really simply now, as the operations issued are > first class commands, and no switches necessary. Also, the verbs here > are 1:1 from the LSB specs, and hence should offer no surprises to > anybody. > > Everybody happy? I am personally quite happy, this looks much much better. Juyst one very minor nitpick, why systemctl enable foo.service instead of systemctl enable service foo ? And of course systemctl enable socket bar etc... Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
