Le mardi 16 juillet 2013 à 17:59 +0100, Colin Guthrie a écrit :
> 'Twas brillig, and Kay Sievers at 16/07/13 17:24 did gyre and gimble:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm, I'd like such an automatism, but I'd really prefer if we could come
> >> up with
On 07/18/2013 12:51 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Fedora is not completely converted, but here are some stats.
$ repoquery --whatprovides '/etc/rc.d/init.d/*' --qf "%{name}" | sort -u |
egrep -v '(-sysvinit|-initscript|-sysv)$' | wc -l
139
Well even that number is not accurate si
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:51:09AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> [snip repoquery magic]
>
>> This means: ~81% of the packages have been converted from sysv to
>> systemd. And ~10% of the converted packages make use of tmpfi
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:51:09AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
[snip repoquery magic]
> This means: ~81% of the packages have been converted from sysv to
> systemd. And ~10% of the converted packages make use of tmpfiles.
>
> Now, my rpm/yum-fu is a bit too limited to easily figure out what
On Wed, 17.07.13 11:24, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> 2013/7/17 Michael Biebl :
> > If this scheme is not flexible enough to cover the vast majority of
> > all cases (for services), then I fear we'd end up half of the services
> > using RuntimeDirectory, the other half a tmpfile. An
On Wed, 17.07.13 11:07, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> 2013/7/16 Lennart Poettering :
>
> > I'd be very conservative regarding adding full tmpfiles support into
> > unit files directly. Instead, I'd suggest adding two very minimal, very
> > specific new unit file settings:
> >
> > R
On Wed, 17.07.13 06:56, Andrey Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, 16.07.13 18:53, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
> >
> > I'd be very conservative regarding adding full tmpfiles support into
> > unit files directly. Instead, I'd suggest adding two very minimal,
2013/7/17 Michael Biebl :
> If this scheme is not flexible enough to cover the vast majority of
> all cases (for services), then I fear we'd end up half of the services
> using RuntimeDirectory, the other half a tmpfile. And that imho would
> be even more confusing.
Could we have some stats from F
2013/7/17 Harald Hoyer :
> If RuntimeDirectory would support variable substitutions, this feature could
> not
> be provided with systemd-tmpfiles.
That would indeed be a nice feature.
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
2013/7/16 Lennart Poettering :
> I'd be very conservative regarding adding full tmpfiles support into
> unit files directly. Instead, I'd suggest adding two very minimal, very
> specific new unit file settings:
>
> RuntimeDirectory=
> RuntimeDirectoyMode=
>
> If RuntimeDirectory= is set we'd creat
On 07/16/2013 09:28 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 06:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> I discussed this a bit more with Kay on the phone. Here's what we'd propose:
>>
>> I'd be very conservative regarding adding full tmpfiles support into
>> unit files directly. Instead, I'd
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 07:41:08PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 07:34 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:28 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> > wrote:
> >>On 07/16/2013 06:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >>>I discussed this a bit more with Kay on the phone.
В Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:26:23 +0200
Lennart Poettering пишет:
> On Tue, 16.07.13 18:53, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
>
> I'd be very conservative regarding adding full tmpfiles support into
> unit files directly. Instead, I'd suggest adding two very minimal, very
> specific n
And to follow up on that:
2013/7/16 Michael Biebl :
> I think it's even less of an issue for Debian, as we usually only
> install stuff when needed and not in a disabled state.
So the unused directories in /run are something I don't expect to be
an issue for Debian.
As for tmpfiles support:
In D
2013/7/16 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek :
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 05:08:12PM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> I am not too concerned about unused runtime directories. After all this
>> is not something that would (or even could) grow without bounds. There
>> will never be more than O(n) runtime dire
On 07/16/2013 07:34 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:28 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
On 07/16/2013 06:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I discussed this a bit more with Kay on the phone. Here's what we'd
propose:
I'd be very conservative regarding adding full tmpfiles sup
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:28 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 06:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>
>> I discussed this a bit more with Kay on the phone. Here's what we'd
>> propose:
>>
>> I'd be very conservative regarding adding full tmpfiles support into
>> unit files directl
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 07:28:12PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 06:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >I discussed this a bit more with Kay on the phone. Here's what we'd propose:
> >
> >I'd be very conservative regarding adding full tmpfiles support into
> >unit files dire
On 07/16/2013 06:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I discussed this a bit more with Kay on the phone. Here's what we'd propose:
I'd be very conservative regarding adding full tmpfiles support into
unit files directly. Instead, I'd suggest adding two very minimal, very
specific new unit file setti
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>> If RuntimeDirectory= is set we'd create it and chown() it to the UID/GID
>> set with User= and Group=. We'd apply the mode specified in
>> RuntimeDirectoryMode= to it.
>
> There are daemons which do, in order:
> 1) start as root
> 2) open
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:26:23PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 16.07.13 18:53, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
>
> > > > I can do a mass update to all our packages anyway so the slight change
> > > > in syntax isn't a problem.
> > > Hm, can we take a step back for
On Tue, 16.07.13 17:59, Colin Guthrie (co...@mageia.org) wrote:
>
> 'Twas brillig, and Kay Sievers at 16/07/13 17:24 did gyre and gimble:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm, I'd like such an automatism, but I'd really prefer if we could come
> >> up
On Tue, 16.07.13 18:53, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
> > > I can do a mass update to all our packages anyway so the slight change
> > > in syntax isn't a problem.
> > Hm, can we take a step back for a moment? It seems that the rpm macros
> > are a fairly complicated solution,
On 07/16/2013 04:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On my (pretty much fully converted) Fedora I currently have 20 tmpfiles
snippets around. I doubt on an everage Debian machine this would grow
much larger. May 40 or so, but that's still not much.
Well we have only migrated what 400 components o
'Twas brillig, and Kay Sievers at 16/07/13 17:24 did gyre and gimble:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I'd like such an automatism, but I'd really prefer if we could come
>> up with some scheme to automatically determine all tmpfiles snippets in
>> the pack
On Tue, 16.07.13 18:34, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 05:08:12PM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> > 'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 16/07/13 17:01 did gyre and gimble:
> > > Anyway, does that RPM macro sound good to you?
> >
> > Sure, see
On Tue, 16.07.13 17:08, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
>
> 'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 16/07/13 17:01 did gyre and gimble:
> > Anyway, does that RPM macro sound good to you?
>
> Sure, seems close enough :)
>
> I can do a mass update to all our packages anyway so the sl
On Tue, 16.07.13 18:24, Kay Sievers (k...@vrfy.org) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, I'd like such an automatism, but I'd really prefer if we could come
> > up with some scheme to automatically determine all tmpfiles snippets in
> > the package
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Hm, can we take a step back for a moment? It seems that the rpm macros
> are a fairly complicated solution, and they also don't carry over into
> debian or arch. User mode sessions also will not work with rpm macros.
For what i
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 05:08:12PM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 16/07/13 17:01 did gyre and gimble:
> > Anyway, does that RPM macro sound good to you?
>
> Sure, seems close enough :)
>
> I can do a mass update to all our packages anyway so the slight change
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> Hmm, I'd like such an automatism, but I'd really prefer if we could come
> up with some scheme to automatically determine all tmpfiles snippets in
> the package and apply them all automatically. But I am not sure how that
> could be don
'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 16/07/13 17:01 did gyre and gimble:
> Anyway, does that RPM macro sound good to you?
Sure, seems close enough :)
I can do a mass update to all our packages anyway so the slight change
in syntax isn't a problem.
Col
--
Colin Guthrie
gmane(at)colin.guthr
On Tue, 16.07.13 16:50, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
> 3. Finally I settled on:
>
> %_tmpfilesdir /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d
> %_tmpfilescreate() /usr/bin/systemd-tmpfiles --create %{1}.conf \
> %{nil}
>
This looks pretty close to what I'd like to see in place. Note that
%_tmpfilesdir i
'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 16/07/13 16:00 did gyre and gimble:
> Something I'd love to see though is if we could make it easier to apply
> tmpfiles stuff automatically on package installation. More specifically,
> I'd like an RPM macro to be added that handles this, and which is
> suf
On Tue, 16.07.13 03:24, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> an interesting issue was raised as part of reviewing a patch for
> iodione [1], a system service which needs a runtime directory. We
> thought this might need further dicussion, so reposting the issue to
> systemd-devel:
>
Hi Michael,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> an interesting issue was raised as part of reviewing a patch for
> iodione [1], a system service which needs a runtime directory. We
> thought this might need further dicussion, so reposting the issue to
> systemd-devel:
>
> For
'Twas brillig, and Michael Biebl at 16/07/13 02:24 did gyre and gimble:
> Hi,
>
> an interesting issue was raised as part of reviewing a patch for
> iodione [1], a system service which needs a runtime directory. We
> thought this might need further dicussion, so reposting the issue to
> systemd-de
2013/7/16 Michael Biebl :
> For system services needing a runtime directory, we basically have two
> (three) options nowadays
> 1/ use ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/mkdir /var/run/foo
> 2/ use a tmpfile snippet
> (3/ let the daemon create the runtime directory itself)
>
> In [1] we recommended the the usag
Hi,
an interesting issue was raised as part of reviewing a patch for
iodione [1], a system service which needs a runtime directory. We
thought this might need further dicussion, so reposting the issue to
systemd-devel:
For system services needing a runtime directory, we basically have two
(three)
39 matches
Mail list logo
