Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said:
WHEN THIS WILL LAND
It's in initscripts git now, will package shortly for F18/F17/F16.
initscripts-9.38-1.fc18
initscripts-9.37.1-1.fc17
initscripts-9.34.3-1.fc16
to be precise.
Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Jonathan Underwood (jonathan.underw...@gmail.com) said:
On 26 June 2012 21:11, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
For each legacy option (such as xyzzy) supported by your init script (such
as frobozz), package an executable script named:
On 26 June 2012 21:11, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
For each legacy option (such as xyzzy) supported by your init script (such
as frobozz), package an executable script named:
/usr/libexec/initscripts/legacy-actions/frobozz/xyzzy
Wouldn't
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 21:48 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 06/26/2012 08:49 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
The preferred new way is that upstream implements the action in a way
that is same across all distributions. Which, in some sense, does not
answer your question.
First and
Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) said:
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
Better late than never (and thanks to Michal Schmidt), I've added support to
/sbin/service for running legacy actions if specified.
I'm confused. Only 2 months ago I was told that this was firmly
against policy
Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
2) Don't package a legacy action for new scripts or actions that were not
supported by the prior init script; this is intended for compatibility with
existing scripts and/or
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) said:
On 06/26/2012 08:11 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Questions? Comments?
You do realize what you have effectively just done by this dont you?
Merged a patch from a systemd maintainer?
Bill, not really interested in playing this game
--
devel
THE PROBLEM
We have assorted init scripts that have historically defined custom actions.
Given that this is an unbounded set, it is impossible to handle them
natively in systemd. However, they're usually part of administrators muscle
memory.
Better late than never (and thanks to Michal Schmidt),
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 16:11:19 -0400,
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Questions? Comments?
Thanks!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:11:19PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
BEST PRACTICES
1) A legacy action of this sort should print to stderr the preferred way to
accomplish the task, if one is supported.
2) Don't package a legacy action for new scripts or actions that were not
supported by the
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
2) Don't package a legacy action for new scripts or actions that were not
supported by the prior init script; this is intended for compatibility with
existing scripts and/or administrator brains.
It would be nice to have
On 06/26/2012 08:11 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Questions? Comments?
You do realize what you have effectively just done by this dont you?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
Better late than never (and thanks to Michal Schmidt), I've added support to
/sbin/service for running legacy actions if specified.
I'm confused. Only 2 months ago I was told that this was firmly
against policy and I should get rid of code that
On 06/26/2012 08:49 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
The preferred new way is that upstream implements the action in a way
that is same across all distributions. Which, in some sense, does not
answer your question.
First and foremost how big of a problem do you guys believe this?
Secondly cant we
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 06/26/2012 08:49 PM, Miloslav TrmaÄ wrote:
The preferred new way is that upstream implements the action in a way
that is same across all distributions. Which, in some sense, does not
answer your question.
First
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/26/2012 08:49 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
The preferred new way is that upstream implements the action in a way
that is same across all distributions. Which, in some sense, does not
answer your question.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
The idea seems to be that you'd only implement actions that exist
in non-systemd initscripts. As long as people adhere to that,
I don't see that we need controls or per-package permissions. And
I don't really see why people
TL == Tom Lane t...@redhat.com writes:
TL Did that packaging guideline get reverted already?
No, it didn't, but of course you know the packaging committee cannot
prevent an upstream from implementing whatever functionality they like.
We can of course revisit the prohibition if someone cares to
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 05:50:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
Better late than never (and thanks to Michal Schmidt), I've added support to
/sbin/service for running legacy actions if specified.
I'm confused. Only 2 months ago I was told that this was
On 06/26/2012 10:12 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
What is this?
Sorry meant to say this is
There are maybe a handful of services that need this hence the
precaution clause so packagers/maintainers simply don't choose to do
exactly what Bill was referring to in 3)
Breaking service foo action
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 06/26/2012 10:12 PM, Miloslav TrmaÄ wrote:
Breaking service foo action reason was just an unnecessary
regression that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Agreed and honestly this sudden turnaround now
On 06/26/2012 11:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 06/26/2012 10:12 PM, Miloslav Trma� wrote:
Breaking service foo action reason was just an unnecessary
regression that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Agreed and
On 06/26/2012 06:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I beg to differ. If Bill doesn't get his wrist slapped by FPC, I'll
be implementing this for postgresql tomorrow, because I'm tired of
hearing complaints about it.
I must be the only one that prefers your separate postgresql-setup
script over the call
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 21:51 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 06/26/2012 06:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I beg to differ. If Bill doesn't get his wrist slapped by FPC, I'll
be implementing this for postgresql tomorrow, because I'm tired of
hearing complaints about it.
I must be the only
Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com writes:
On 06/26/2012 06:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I beg to differ. If Bill doesn't get his wrist slapped by FPC, I'll
be implementing this for postgresql tomorrow, because I'm tired of
hearing complaints about it.
I must be the only one that prefers your
Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org writes:
Especially since it handles multiple postgresql instances with an
optional parameter.
Tom, can you try to make sure the script
in /usr/libexec/initscripts/legacy-actions allows the same?
Unless Bill hacked /sbin/service to pass additional
26 matches
Mail list logo
