Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > Am 21.02.12 14:37, schrieb Miloslav Trmač: >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Harald Hoyer >> wrote: >>> Am 20.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Miloslav Trmač: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > There is no reason to hav

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Am 21.02.12 14:37, schrieb Miloslav Trmač: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: >> Am 20.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Miloslav Trmač: >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: There is no reason to have /usr/share// and /usr/lib/, even LSB specifies that

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:17:30PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 20:18, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:30:11PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > >> On Mon, 20.02.12 09:25, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > >> > This sounds like the unit

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > Am 20.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Miloslav Trmač: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: >>> There is no reason to have >>> /usr/share// and /usr/lib/, even LSB specifies that >>> only a _single_ dir should be used, hence the one

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Am 20.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Miloslav Trmač: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: >> /usr/share in our general understanding not to be used for >> package-private things. > Who is "we"? This is in direct conflict with the FHS: > > "Any program or package which contains or requir

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 21:25, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Lun 20 février 2012 21:20, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : >> Le Lun 20 février 2012 21:07, Kay Sievers a écrit : > >>> I couldn't disagree more. >>> >>> /usr/share in our general understanding not to be used for >>> package-private things. >> >

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > 2012/2/20 Miloslav Trmač : >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: >>> The general rule for $libdir is that it is reserved for shared objects >>> and their directly associated files like pkgconfig files. >> No, that's not at all

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

2012/2/20 Miloslav Trmač : > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: >> The general rule for $libdir is that it is reserved for shared objects >> and their directly associated files like pkgconfig files. > No, that's not at all what the FHS says. "Applications may use a single subdire

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Le Lun 20 février 2012 21:20, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > > Le Lun 20 février 2012 21:07, Kay Sievers a écrit : >> I couldn't disagree more. >> >> /usr/share in our general understanding not to be used for >> package-private things. > > But those files are not package-private! Even ignoring the e

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > The general rule for $libdir is that it is reserved for shared objects > and their directly associated files like pkgconfig files. No, that's not at all what the FHS says. Please don't claim that any suggested meaning, however reasonable it ma

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Le Lun 20 février 2012 21:07, Kay Sievers a écrit : > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 20:42, Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: >> >> Le Lun 20 février 2012 18:50, Kay Sievers a écrit : >>> On Feb 20, 2012 6:25 PM, "Toshio Kuratomi" wrote: >> >>> Udev rules and systemd units belong to the installed daemon. This d

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > /usr/share in our general understanding not to be used for > package-private things. Who is "we"? This is in direct conflict with the FHS: "Any program or package which contains or requires data that doesn't need to be modified should store t

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 20:18, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:30:11PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Mon, 20.02.12 09:25, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: >> > This sounds like the unit files belong in %{_libdir} now?  However, that >> > would mean that the

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 20:42, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Lun 20 février 2012 18:50, Kay Sievers a écrit : >> On Feb 20, 2012 6:25 PM, "Toshio Kuratomi" wrote: > >> Udev rules and systemd units belong to the installed daemon. This daemon >> can only exist exactly one single time, and never be

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Le Lun 20 février 2012 18:50, Kay Sievers a écrit : > On Feb 20, 2012 6:25 PM, "Toshio Kuratomi" wrote: > Udev rules and systemd units belong to the installed daemon. This daemon > can only exist exactly one single time, and never be installed by multilib > packages, hence they do not ever belon

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Le Lun 20 février 2012 18:18, Nils Philippsen a écrit : > On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 13:51 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> This isn't really a "new" exception for me. There's a ton of files >> that >> are not strictly arch dependent in bin, lib, libexec. Shell scripts, >> Python scripts, udev rules

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:30:11PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 20.02.12 09:25, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 01:02:11PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > On Fri, 17.02.12 10:46, Nathaniel McCallum (nathan...@natemccallum.com) > > > w

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Feb 20, 2012 6:25 PM, "Toshio Kuratomi" wrote: > This sounds like the unit files belong in %{_libdir} now? However, that > would mean that they can't go into noarch packages. So we probably need to > know a little more about just how architecture dependent these unit files > can be. There i

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, 20.02.12 09:25, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 01:02:11PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Fri, 17.02.12 10:46, Nathaniel McCallum (nathan...@natemccallum.com) > > wrote: > > > > > I'm a fan of systemd [1]. And although I didn't like the fact

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 01:02:11PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 17.02.12 10:46, Nathaniel McCallum (nathan...@natemccallum.com) wrote: > > > I'm a fan of systemd [1]. And although I didn't like the fact that unit > > files were stored in /lib, I understood the rationale since there w

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 13:51 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > This isn't really a "new" exception for me. There's a ton of files > that > are not strictly arch dependent in bin, lib, libexec. Shell scripts, > Python scripts, udev rules, pkg-config files, a ton of rpm files, LSB > symlinks, Java fi

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 13:51, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 20.02.12 13:32, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) wrote: >> Le Lun 20 février 2012 13:02, Lennart Poettering a écrit : >> >> > Something similar applies to udev rules and similar "almost code" bits. >> > >> > But yeah,

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Dne 20.2.2012 13:51, Lennart Poettering napsal(a): On Mon, 20.02.12 13:32, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) wrote: Le Lun 20 février 2012 13:02, Lennart Poettering a écrit : Something similar applies to udev rules and similar "almost code" bits. But yeah, I know people will disa

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Mon, 20.02.12 13:32, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) wrote: > > Le Lun 20 février 2012 13:02, Lennart Poettering a écrit : > > > Something similar applies to udev rules and similar "almost code" bits. > > > > But yeah, I know people will disagree with us on this. > > Lennart ,

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Le Lun 20 février 2012 13:02, Lennart Poettering a écrit : > Something similar applies to udev rules and similar "almost code" bits. > > But yeah, I know people will disagree with us on this. Lennart , you realise, do you, that people are unlikely to fix the historical exceptions they've benefit

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Fri, 17.02.12 10:46, Nathaniel McCallum (nathan...@natemccallum.com) wrote: > I'm a fan of systemd [1]. And although I didn't like the fact that unit > files were stored in /lib, I understood the rationale since there was no > /share. However, I've just recently discovered [2] that after UsrMov

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 06:25:23PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 17.02.2012 18:20, schrieb Nathaniel McCallum: > > > Sure, as time permits and when such can be done without harming user > > experience. > > > > FOR WHAT REASON? > > > > such changes do ALWAYS harming user exp

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Le Ven 17 février 2012 18:40, Adam Williamson a écrit : > On 2012-02-17 10:28, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> Well, as we discussed the other day on IRC, we pretty much all agreed >> that it's not in the spirit of the FHS to have these files in /lib >> or /usr/lib. The only reason they were ever in

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Le Ven 17 février 2012 18:02, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a écrit : > On 02/17/2012 04:48 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Yeah -- so I see three options -- move systemd unit files to /usr/share, >> revert /usr/move, change rpmlint (or a fourth -- ignore this warning for f17 >> and move systemd unit file

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > Tone down the rhetoric please. I'm no expert, but I think the UsrMove issue has pushed some people beyond anxiety disorder. MDMA or diazepam would probably have a higher efficacy than more emails on the subject. Chris Murphy-- devel

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On 2012-02-17 10:28, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 17:17 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 02/17/2012 05:09 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > > Sure, as time permits and when such can be done without harming user > experience. Why bother only with unit files? Users neve

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 17:17 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 02/17/2012 05:09 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > > > > Sure, as time permits and when such can be done without harming user > > experience. > > Why bother only with unit files? Users never touch those the ones in > /lib/syst

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Am 17.02.2012 18:20, schrieb Nathaniel McCallum: > > Sure, as time permits and when such can be done without harming user > experience. > > FOR WHAT REASON? > > such changes do ALWAYS harming user experience > > why? > becaus eoperating systems are (or where it seems) mad

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 17.02.2012 18:09, schrieb Nathaniel McCallum: > > > > > > 2012/2/17 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johan...@gmail.com>> > > > > On 02/17/2012 04:48 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > Yeah -- so I see three options -- move system

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Am 17.02.2012 18:16, schrieb Nathaniel McCallum: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: > > Am 17.02.2012 18:00, schrieb Nathaniel McCallum: > > Move systemd unit files to /usr/share and provide simple logic to fall > back /lib, so as

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On 02/17/2012 05:09 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: Sure, as time permits and when such can be done without harming user experience. Why bother only with unit files? Users never touch those the ones in /lib/systemd/system or /usr/lib/systemd/system anyway so there is no breakage for them...

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Am 17.02.2012 18:09, schrieb Nathaniel McCallum: > > > 2012/2/17 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" > > > On 02/17/2012 04:48 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Yeah -- so I see three options -- move systemd unit files to > /usr/share, > revert /usr/move, cha

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 17.02.2012 18:00, schrieb Nathaniel McCallum: > > Move systemd unit files to /usr/share and provide simple logic to fall > back /lib, so as not to break upgrades with > > custom unit files. I am certainly not advocating a bad user exp

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

2012/2/17 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" > On 02/17/2012 04:48 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> Yeah -- so I see three options -- move systemd unit files to /usr/share, >> revert /usr/move, change rpmlint (or a fourth -- ignore this warning for >> f17 >> and move systemd unit files to /usr/share for f18)

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

Am 17.02.2012 18:00, schrieb Nathaniel McCallum: > Move systemd unit files to /usr/share and provide simple logic to fall back > /lib, so as not to break upgrades with > custom unit files. I am certainly not advocating a bad user experience. If > the schedule doesn't permit it, I'm ok > with de

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On 02/17/2012 04:48 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Yeah -- so I see three options -- move systemd unit files to /usr/share, revert /usr/move, change rpmlint (or a fourth -- ignore this warning for f17 and move systemd unit files to /usr/share for f18). Which are you advocating? If you are going to

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:46:58AM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > > I'm a fan of systemd [1]. And although I didn't like the fact that unit > files > > were stored in /lib, I understood the rationale since there was no > /share. > > Ho

Re: systemd system unit files and UsrMove

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:46:58AM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > I'm a fan of systemd [1]. And although I didn't like the fact that unit files > were stored in /lib, I understood the rationale since there was no /share. > However, I've just recently discovered [2] that after UsrMove unit files