On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Wed, 30.07.14 09:02, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (umut.tezdu...@axis.com) wrote: > >> --- >> units/ldconfig.service | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/units/ldconfig.service b/units/ldconfig.service >> index 43c145b..09a2b74 100644 >> --- a/units/ldconfig.service >> +++ b/units/ldconfig.service >> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ Conflicts=shutdown.target >> After=systemd-readahead-collect.service systemd-readahead-replay.service >> systemd-remount-fs.service >> Before=sysinit.target shutdown.target systemd-update-done.service >> ConditionNeedsUpdate=/etc >> +ConditionFileIsExecutable=/sbin/ldconfig >> >> [Service] >> Type=oneshot > > Ummmmmhh... Do we really want this? I presume you are not using glibc, > are you?
We are actually. glibc 2-15 but not x86 ISA. > > I mean, whether ldconfig is around or not is not really an admin > decision, it's an OS vendor decision. Because of that we should probably > make shiping the ldconfig service file optional, rather then always ship > it but then conditionalize it... > > I'd prefer to keep conditions rather minimal in general... I could also mask the service but it is good to deviate as little as possible. Maybe a configure check to install the service or not? Umut > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel