Sean Whitton writes:
>> +Packages that include system services should include ``systemd`` units
>> +to start or stop services.
>> +
>> Packages that include daemons for system services should place scripts
>> in ``/etc/init.d`` to start or stop services at boot time or during a
>> change of runlevel. These scripts should be named
>
> The text now has both "Packages that include system services ..." and
> "Packages that include daemons for system services". Do you take these
> to refer to different things? Surely we can combine the language somehow.
No. I just wanted to have a simple initial proposal to start with.
Arguably one can ship systemd services for more things (such as
dbus-activated or timer-activated services), but I don't think that
difference matters here.
I omitted the "daemons for" as both service files and initscripts don't
always start a persistent background process (daemon), but can also run
one-time actions.
To combine the language, maybe the second paragraph should be changed to
something like
[To support alternative init systems] packages should additionally
place initscripts in ``/etc/init.d``. These scripts should be named
...
(with or without the text in brackets).
(I think the naming rule also isn't that good: if upstream includes some
startup scripts it might be more useful to use those, even when named
differently than the package, to match upstream documentation and other
distributions.)
Ansgar
