Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-06 Thread Alex Elsayed
Owen Synge wrote: snip If I underwstand right you favor the user interface as: --with-init=systemd --with-init=sysv --with-init=upstart --with-init=bsd Please do be sure to make --with-init=systemd respect the --with-systemdsystemunitdir=PATH option, as some distros rely on that to

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-03 Thread Owen Synge
On 06/03/2015 06:26 PM, Sage Weil wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Owen Synge wrote: Dear ceph-devel, Linux has more than one init systems. We in SUSE are in the process of up streaming our spec files, and all our releases are systemd based. Ceph seems more tested with sysVinit upstream. We

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-03 Thread Ken Dreyer
On 06/03/2015 03:38 PM, Sage Weil wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote: On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init system is specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise. I was picturing that we'd just

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-03 Thread Ken Dreyer
On 06/03/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote: We could maybe autodetect if they don't specify one? Sorry, yes, that's what I meant; my last email was unclear. - Ken -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe ceph-devel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-03 Thread Sage Weil
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote: On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init system is specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise. I was picturing that we'd just autodetect based on OS version (eg

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-03 Thread Gregory Farnum
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Ken Dreyer kdre...@redhat.com wrote: On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init system is specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise. I was picturing that we'd just autodetect

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-03 Thread Sage Weil
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote: On 06/03/2015 03:38 PM, Sage Weil wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote: On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init system is specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-03 Thread Ken Dreyer
On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init system is specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise. I was picturing that we'd just autodetect based on OS version (eg Ubuntu 15.04 should default to

packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-03 Thread Owen Synge
Dear ceph-devel, Linux has more than one init systems. We in SUSE are in the process of up streaming our spec files, and all our releases are systemd based. Ceph seems more tested with sysVinit upstream. We have 3 basic options for doing this in a packaged upstream system. 1) We dont install

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

2015-06-03 Thread Sage Weil
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Owen Synge wrote: Dear ceph-devel, Linux has more than one init systems. We in SUSE are in the process of up streaming our spec files, and all our releases are systemd based. Ceph seems more tested with sysVinit upstream. We have 3 basic options for doing this in