From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:37:55 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/3] Rework of the init system In-Reply-To: <4F06BBC2.6050002@free-electrons.com> References: <1322047811-12933-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <201201060813.26133.arnout@mind.be> <4F06BBC2.6050002@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <201201090737.55064.arnout@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Friday 06 January 2012 10:15:46 Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> From what I understood of it, if init scripts are presents, systemd will > >> check the name to see if it has a unit for this, and will prefer the > >> unit if it has one. But I'm not sure how it will behave with our way of > >> naming the init scripts. > > > > That's something else: buildroot should install only one set of init > > scripts, either sysv or systemd. If you really want both, you'll have > > to put it in the skeleton. > > I agree, but you seem to say otherwise in your other mail from today. To > me, there is no need for us to add a fallback to sysv scripts. You will > be in one of the three cases : > - You use sysvinit or busybox and the package has a sysv script: Great > - You use systemd and the package has no systemd unit file: Send a patch > - You use systemd and the package has a systemd unit file: Great > > As simple as that. OK, fair enough. No fallback sysv scripts needed, then. Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286540 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: