On Fri, 15.03.13 11:07, Dan Mashal (dan.mashal(a)gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Michal Schmidt
<mschmidt(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/15/2013 07:00 PM, Dan Mashal wrote:
>>
>> Looks like you guys added provides(service) and fixed the problem.
>
>
> Yes, Lukáš added it. He even mentioned it in the email that started this
> thread. Still it would be nice to drop legacy provide name after packages
> stop Requiring it.
>
>
> Michal
>
Well I was reading an IRC discussion on devel. I'm like a horse with
blinders. "This used to work and doesn't anymore". Which leads me to
my next point: What does it hurt to have the command there? In fact
you should just rename "systemctl" "service" and make it understand
service commands. It's annoying over all.
Nope, I am pretty sure I won't add code to systemctl itself to
manipulate /etc/rc.d/...
It's OK to invoke "service" from "systemctl", and that's what
we
do if we are run for a SysV service. It's also OK to invoke "systemctl"
from "service", and that's also what is being done. But merging the
codebases, no thank you.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.