On Mon, 24.11.14 09:30, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote: > It was <2014-11-21 pią 21:36>, when Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Fri, 21.11.14 17:07, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote: > > > >> On a system configured without networkd and sysusers there still needs > >> to be the unnecessary systemd-network user, otherwise systemd-tmpfiles > >> fails to start. > >> > >> Move information associated with networkd in tmpfiles.d and sysusers.d > >> to separate files. Do not install it if netwrorkd is not enabled. > > > > In principle looks OK, but I'd prefer if we would write this out with > > m4 (see etc.conf.m4) and keep it in the current files, rather than > > split this up in numerous files. > > > > Especially in the case of /run/systemd/netif this actually matters: if > > we split that out into its own tmpfiles snippet, then packagers would > > most likely put that in its own RPM/DEB if they split out those > > daemons. But this is not advisable in this case, as sd-network (which > > will eventually be a public API of libsystems) needs the directory to > > be around to install an inotify watch. If the directory doesn't exist, > > and the API is used it will fail entirely, which is suboptimal, given > > that networkd might be installed later on, and things should then just > > start to work. > > Will it be necessary for this directory to be owned by systemd-network > even without networkd?
Yes. If networkd is compile-time enable the dir should exist and be properly owned, even if it networkd is split off into a separate binary package and currently not installed. Your patch in the version Zbigniew commited looks correct in this regard! Thanks! Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
