From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:19:39 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/6] Add the systemd package In-Reply-To: <4F68416B.50604@free-electrons.com> References: <201203200032.19236.arnout@mind.be> <4F68416B.50604@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <201203201919.39532.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 Tuesday 20 March 2012 09:35:55 Maxime Ripard wrote: [snip] > >> diff --git a/package/systemd/getty at .service b/package/systemd/getty at .service > > [snip] > >> diff --git a/package/systemd/serial-getty at .service b/package/systemd/serial-getty at .service > > > > AFAICS the only difference between these two files and the upstream > > version is that it's getty instead of agetty. Wouldn't it be simpler > > and more future-safe to patch the upstream files? > > Probably. I'll send a patch and see how it turns out. > In the meantime, maybe I can just put a patch here instead of the whole > file. That's what I meant. I doubt that upstream would accept a patch that removes agetty. Maybe a patch that makes it configurable in the m4 file, but that's a lot more work to cook. BTW, I just noticed now that the 'normal' service definition files are installed in /lib/systemd/system rather than /etc/systemd/system. [snip] > >> +define SYSTEMD_INSTALL_TTY_HOOK > >> + rm -f $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty at tty1.service > >> + [ -f $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/systemd/system/getty at .service ] || \ > >> + $(INSTALL) -D package/systemd/getty at .service \ > >> + $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/systemd/system/ > >> + [ -f $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/systemd/system/serial-getty at .service ] || \ > >> + $(INSTALL) -D package/systemd/serial-getty at .service \ > >> + $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/systemd/system/ > >> + ln -fs ../serial-getty at .service $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/serial-getty@$(BR2_TARGET_GENERIC_GETTY_PORT).service > > > > This looks strange to me. Admittedly, I've never used systemd and > > don't really know how it works. But to me, this looks like the > > getty at .service is actually not used. > > Well, actually, this symlink with weird names is used as the way to pass > units some arguments. That much I know :-) My point is: the getty at tty1.service file is removed. Therefore, there is nobody using the getty at .service generic definition. At least that's my understanding of how systemd works. So why install the getty at .service file? 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