Hi Vincent, On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 09:09:46PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ??? 1 novembre 2015 20:20 +0100, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> : > > > This case is not specific to your operating system, in fact only a > > minority of platforms need the systemd-wrapper. I personally build > > with "make ... EXTRA=" to avoid building it and installing it. I > > think we took the wrong approach by enabling it by default, since > > we're bothering all platforms. We should probably change this to > > have a "linux-systemd" target which enables it. > > > > If nobody objects, I'd rather do that so that you don't have to add > > a specific if/elif/endif just for this. What do you think ? > > On the other hand, it is not really systemd-specific (and could be made > not Linux-specific if it wasn't using /proc/self/exe to find its own > name). It could be useful on other systems as well, as a way to turn > HAProxy into a "regular" daemon. It could also be used to simplify the > current init.d script. I could be renamed to just "haproxy-wrapper".
Sure, I've thought the same, but always with the same question in the end : "for what purpose ?". If we provide binaries which provide useless features whose purpose cannot easily be explained to their users, probably the binary in question should not be there. If it provides a real benefit, then that's different, it's a matter of packaging choice and we should not remove it by default. Given that I never needed it and still failed to see a benefit outside of systemd, I'm inclined to think we don't need it, but I could be wrong. Regards, Willy
