On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:35:07 +0200
Miloslav TrmaÄ <mitr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Lennart Poettering
> <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14.04.11 13:05, Chris Adams (cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> >> Since they are config files (unlike the init scripts themselves),
> >> changing them doesn't leave you with RPM wanting to replace them on
> >> every package update either.
> >
> > Yupp, and this is much much prettier in systemd. After you copied
> > the service file from /lib to /etc they are out of the package
> > manager territory and will always override what has been configured
> > by the distro packager.
> Separating the program that integrates software into the distribution
> (/etc/init.d/*) and user's configuration that is managed via
> .rpm{save,new} is actually valuable.
>
> If upstream changes how the program should be invoked and the Fedora
> packager updates /etc/init.d/*, this change is transparent to users,
> as long as the chang doesn't affect the specifics of user's
> configuration in /etc/sysconfig - and even if it does, the user has
> .rpm{save,new} and can figure out what has happened.
>
> Copying the service file from /lib to /etc seems to lose this property
> - if the /etc file "hides" the /lib file, the service will just break
> with no indication that something needs to be updated. Or does
> systemd support "inheritance" of configuration from /lib to /etc so
> that the user can only make the minimal changes necessary?
> Mirek
I was going to make exactly the same objection.
Now rpm scripts will have to check and possibly have to muck with the
copies in /etc or risk that the service in question will fail to work
after a major update.
Sounds like trading one set of issues for another set of
potentially bigger issues.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
