On Tue, 16.10.12 15:35, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: > > 2012/10/16 Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net>: > > Now, Thomas' patch actually changes much less than people might > > think. This is because sd_booted() simply checks whether > > /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd is mounted. But to run --user on a foreign system > > you need to set that tree up anyway, as that is a requirement for > > systemd either way. > > So, if you have non-systemd init + systemd --user, sd_booted() will > return true, even if the system has not been booted with systemd.
Well, If people do stupid things people do stupid things. I am all for adding a high-level warning, like we just did, but if people really insist on ignoring it then they can do this, but I don't have to care anymore. I am all for adding one level of safety checks, but adding more than one, nah, thank you very much... > This could lead to very interesting/unexpected results, like system > software misbehaving (e.g. rsyslog checks for sd_booted()), or in > Debian we use the [ -d /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd ] check at several > places to check whether we have booted with systemd. > > I'm wondering if it would be possible / make sense to use a separate > sysfs tree for users session in such a case, like > /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd-user We definitely want less tres rather than more. And in this case we can't win anyway, so it sounds like a very bad choice... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
