Le lundi 27 juin 2011 à 14:24 +0200, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> On Fri, 24.06.11 15:08, Frederic Crozat (fcro...@suse.com) wrote:
>
> Heya,
>
> Sounds good! A few comments:
>
> > %service_add()
> > if [ "$1" -eq 1 ] ; then
> > # Initial installation
> > /bin/systemctl daemon-reload >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
> > fi
> >
> > %service_add_enabled()
> > if [ "$1" -eq 1 ] ; then
> > # Initial installation
> > /bin/systemctl enable %{1}.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
> > fi
>
> I'd strongly advise against this. Units might install more than one
> service, and other units instead of services (example: sshd might just
> enable a socket by default, but not a service). Hence we should not
> appaned .service but leave it to the package to specifiy the full name
> and we also need to make sure packagers can specify multiple unit files
> at once.
This question was also spotted on opensuse-packaging and we thought it
should be discussed here :)
So, usage would become :
%post
%service_add ssh.socket
%post
%service_add_enabled foobar.service
?
> Bill, what's your take on this? For some reason we solve very little
> with macros like this on Fedora. Not sure why. Should I push for
> including macros like this in rpm, or in the systemd packages?
If we could get some skeleton directly in "upstream" rpm, that would be
awesome ;)
--
Frederic Crozat <fcro...@suse.com>
SUSE
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
