michael@stroeder.com wrote:

ryan@nardis.ca wrote:

...

An explicit design goal of systemd is that unit files should be uniform enough that it's reasonable for upstream projects to ship them,

=20 Yes, systemd has many admirable goals.

And not enough competent developers to achieve any of them.

On the other hands Linux distributions differ a lot especially regarding file system layout, not to speak of their systemd back-port patches.

My experience so far with Arch/Debian/Ubuntu/Centos mirrors this - they'r= e all=20 different in FS layouts (/var/run vs /run, etc etc etc) and the situation= is=20 no better than it was in SysV init. I see no reason for us to change our=20 policy regarding system-specific dependencies.

re: providing an example in OpenLDAP documentation - this is an only slig= htly=20 less-bad suggestion. The onus is on systemd to provide adequate documenta= tion=20 on how to write unit files, and adequate examples of working files. Our o= nly=20 responsibility is to document the parameters for correctly running the co= de;=20 it's up to distro packagers to encapsulate a correct invocation into what= ever=20 their launch mechanism is.

If no one has any other reasons to offer, I'm inclined to reject and clos= e=20 this ITS.

=20 Ciao, Michael. =20 P.S.: Right at this moment I'm trying to figure out the appropriate Requires and After lines in systemd unit file template in =C3=83=E2=80=A0=

-DIR's

ansible role. And the ansible role has only support for three (and a half) different Linux distributions [1]. =20 [1] https://www.ae-dir.com/install.html#prereq =20 =20 =20 =20

--=20 -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/