Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
Currently I have quite a lot of work, but I make a systemd services pledge - I'll write three services per week if 10 other people do the same http://www.pledgebank.com/systemdservices
2011/2/22 Michał Piotrowski mkkp4x4@gmail.com:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
Currently I have quite a lot of work, but I make a systemd services pledge - I'll write three services per week if 10 other people do the same http://www.pledgebank.com/systemdservices
uh... How are you creating the spec file? In testing, I've yet to get a specfile that performs as expected. I'd be happy if you could take a look at the proposed guidelines and figure out if this is a guidelines bug, a systemd bug, a testing bug, or a bug in the packages that I'm testing with.
Packages testing with: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/systemd
Proposed Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft
FPC Ticket that has a comment with the steps that I tried to test: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/31
-Toshio
On Tue, 22.02.11 12:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) wrote:
2011/2/22 Michał Piotrowski mkkp4x4@gmail.com:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
Currently I have quite a lot of work, but I make a systemd services pledge - I'll write three services per week if 10 other people do the same http://www.pledgebank.com/systemdservices
uh... How are you creating the spec file? In testing, I've yet to get a specfile that performs as expected. I'd be happy if you could take a look at the proposed guidelines and figure out if this is a guidelines bug, a systemd bug, a testing bug, or a bug in the packages that I'm testing with.
Did you actually check if you had at least chkconfig 1.3.50-1 installed when you tested this, as I wrote in the FPC bug?
Also, Michał's work is about adding systemd unit files, not about adding SysV init scripts, because those already exist...
Lennart
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:30:52AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 22.02.11 12:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) wrote:
2011/2/22 Michał Piotrowski mkkp4x4@gmail.com:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
Currently I have quite a lot of work, but I make a systemd services pledge - I'll write three services per week if 10 other people do the same http://www.pledgebank.com/systemdservices
uh... How are you creating the spec file? In testing, I've yet to get a specfile that performs as expected. I'd be happy if you could take a look at the proposed guidelines and figure out if this is a guidelines bug, a systemd bug, a testing bug, or a bug in the packages that I'm testing with.
Did you actually check if you had at least chkconfig 1.3.50-1 installed when you tested this, as I wrote in the FPC bug?
Also, Michał's work is about adding systemd unit files, not about adding SysV init scripts, because those already exist...
Okay, I've tried all sorts of different wording to get you to understand what is being tested. I'll try one more before giving up:
Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs?
If you aren't proposing that, then testing that we can successfully upgrade from a systemVinit script using package to a systemd unit file using package is a test that needs to pass.
-Toshio
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:30:52AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 22.02.11 12:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) wrote:
2011/2/22 Michał Piotrowski mkkp4x4@gmail.com:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
Currently I have quite a lot of work, but I make a systemd services pledge - I'll write three services per week if 10 other people do the same http://www.pledgebank.com/systemdservices
uh... How are you creating the spec file? In testing, I've yet to get a specfile that performs as expected. I'd be happy if you could take a look at the proposed guidelines and figure out if this is a guidelines bug, a systemd bug, a testing bug, or a bug in the packages that I'm testing with.
Did you actually check if you had at least chkconfig 1.3.50-1 installed when you tested this, as I wrote in the FPC bug?
Also, Michał's work is about adding systemd unit files, not about adding SysV init scripts, because those already exist...
Okay, I've tried all sorts of different wording to get you to understand what is being tested. I'll try one more before giving up:
Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs?
If you aren't proposing that, then testing that we can successfully upgrade from a systemVinit script using package to a systemd unit file using package is a test that needs to pass.
I'm not a Fedora developer and I do not know much about RPM's. Could you write something more about what problem you mean?
-Toshio
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:38:50PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:30:52AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 22.02.11 12:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) wrote:
2011/2/22 Michał Piotrowski mkkp4x4@gmail.com:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
Currently I have quite a lot of work, but I make a systemd services pledge - I'll write three services per week if 10 other people do the same http://www.pledgebank.com/systemdservices
uh... How are you creating the spec file? In testing, I've yet to get a specfile that performs as expected. I'd be happy if you could take a look at the proposed guidelines and figure out if this is a guidelines bug, a systemd bug, a testing bug, or a bug in the packages that I'm testing with.
Did you actually check if you had at least chkconfig 1.3.50-1 installed when you tested this, as I wrote in the FPC bug?
Also, Michał's work is about adding systemd unit files, not about adding SysV init scripts, because those already exist...
Okay, I've tried all sorts of different wording to get you to understand what is being tested. I'll try one more before giving up:
Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs?
If you aren't proposing that, then testing that we can successfully upgrade from a systemVinit script using package to a systemd unit file using package is a test that needs to pass.
I'm not a Fedora developer and I do not know much about RPM's. Could you write something more about what problem you mean?
If a particular piece of software is going to convert from systemv init scripts to systemd unit files we'll end up with two important rpm files. One that is before the conversion and has sysv init scripts and one that is after the conversion and has systemd unit files.
The rpm packages contain small (usually shell) scripts that allow the package to register themselves with the init system. These will turn the service on if that's allowed by policy, restart the service if it's already running, stop the service before uninstallation, etc.
The proposed Packaging Guidelines for systemd: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft
Needs to contain the necessary scriptlets for packages that use systemd unit files. At the moment, the draft only contains scriptlets for a default-off case. We also need scriptlets for services which autostart and for services which bus activate. Given that FESCo seems to be moving towards a policy that allows a broad range of services to autostart, we probably need the autostart guidelines in place soon. The bus activated scriptlets are needed but we may be able to delay as it sounds like we only want a few services to be bus activated anyway and those services can be started as normal until we have guidelines on how they need to be set to autostart.
The scriptlets that we currently have do not work in testing. I have tested the migration path from a sysv init script using service to an upgraded package using systemd unit files and that doesn't work. at some point someone also needs to test the upgrade between systemd unit file using services but I personally haven't had time for that yet. The FPC ticket has the steps that would constitute a good test of those services.
Without guidelines that work, current work to port to systemd unit files could have several undesirable effects. Least critically would be that the ported packages would need to be revisited to have their spec files updated. Most critically, the unit file using packages would break end users systems when they upgrade the package from F15 to F14.
-Toshio
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com wrote:
The scriptlets that we currently have do not work in testing. I have tested the migration path from a sysv init script using service to an upgraded package using systemd unit files and that doesn't work. at some point someone also needs to test the upgrade between systemd unit file using services but I personally haven't had time for that yet. The FPC ticket has the steps that would constitute a good test of those services.
This is a live yum upgrade? That not working doesn't seem hard blocker to me - we currently recommend preupgrade which is non-live for precisely these kinds of reasons.
Colin Walters (walters@verbum.org) said:
The scriptlets that we currently have do not work in testing. I have tested the migration path from a sysv init script using service to an upgraded package using systemd unit files and that doesn't work. at some point someone also needs to test the upgrade between systemd unit file using services but I personally haven't had time for that yet. The FPC ticket has the steps that would constitute a good test of those services.
This is a live yum upgrade? That not working doesn't seem hard blocker to me - we currently recommend preupgrade which is non-live for precisely these kinds of reasons.
While not a blocker, it's certainly something we should fix issues with where reasonably possible. (And, it's entirely possible that changes of this sort could happen in the normal update process, although I'd like to think maintainers wouldn't switch this stuff around in a released distro much.)
Bill
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:10:43PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com wrote:
The scriptlets that we currently have do not work in testing. I have tested the migration path from a sysv init script using service to an upgraded package using systemd unit files and that doesn't work. at some point someone also needs to test the upgrade between systemd unit file using services but I personally haven't had time for that yet. The FPC ticket has the steps that would constitute a good test of those services.
This is a live yum upgrade? That not working doesn't seem hard blocker to me - we currently recommend preupgrade which is non-live for precisely these kinds of reasons.
No. This is an upgrade of a single package from one that has sysv init scripts to a later version that has systemd unit files. If this isn't working, then chances are good that any of the whole-distro upgrade methods are going to fail as well.
-Toshio
On Wed, 23.02.11 09:39, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) wrote:
The proposed Packaging Guidelines for systemd: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft
Needs to contain the necessary scriptlets for packages that use systemd unit files. At the moment, the draft only contains scriptlets for a default-off case. We also need scriptlets for services which autostart and for services which bus activate.
There is no difference between "autostart" and "bus activate". There's only enabled or not.
I have now added a %post example for a service that should be enable by default.
Given that FESCo seems to be moving towards a policy that allows a broad range of services to autostart, we probably need the autostart guidelines in place soon. The bus activated scriptlets are needed but we may be able to delay as it sounds like we only want a few services to be bus activated anyway and those services can be started as normal until we have guidelines on how they need to be set to autostart.
Well, in the default Fedora install there are actually quite a few bus services, more than non-bus services.
The scriptlets that we currently have do not work in testing. I have tested the migration path from a sysv init script using service to an upgraded package using systemd unit files and that doesn't work. at some point someone also needs to test the upgrade between systemd unit file using services but I personally haven't had time for that yet. The FPC ticket has the steps that would constitute a good test of those services.
Would be cool to include the .spec file and .service file you used in that ticket. It's otherwise difficult to help you from the distance.
Lennart
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:38:50PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:30:52AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 22.02.11 12:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) wrote:
2011/2/22 Michał Piotrowski mkkp4x4@gmail.com:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
Currently I have quite a lot of work, but I make a systemd services pledge - I'll write three services per week if 10 other people do the same http://www.pledgebank.com/systemdservices
uh... How are you creating the spec file? In testing, I've yet to get a specfile that performs as expected. I'd be happy if you could take a look at the proposed guidelines and figure out if this is a guidelines bug, a systemd bug, a testing bug, or a bug in the packages that I'm testing with.
Did you actually check if you had at least chkconfig 1.3.50-1 installed when you tested this, as I wrote in the FPC bug?
Also, Michał's work is about adding systemd unit files, not about adding SysV init scripts, because those already exist...
Okay, I've tried all sorts of different wording to get you to understand what is being tested. I'll try one more before giving up:
Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs?
If you aren't proposing that, then testing that we can successfully upgrade from a systemVinit script using package to a systemd unit file using package is a test that needs to pass.
I'm not a Fedora developer and I do not know much about RPM's. Could you write something more about what problem you mean?
If a particular piece of software is going to convert from systemv init scripts to systemd unit files we'll end up with two important rpm files. One that is before the conversion and has sysv init scripts and one that is after the conversion and has systemd unit files.
IFAIU RPM after conversion should have both - sysv init scripts and systemd services. Why do you want to remove sysvinit scripts? Both scripts can coexist without any problem.
The rpm packages contain small (usually shell) scripts that allow the package to register themselves with the init system. These will turn the service on if that's allowed by policy, restart the service if it's already running, stop the service before uninstallation, etc.
The proposed Packaging Guidelines for systemd: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft
Needs to contain the necessary scriptlets for packages that use systemd unit files. At the moment, the draft only contains scriptlets for a default-off case. We also need scriptlets for services which autostart and for services which bus activate. Given that FESCo seems to be moving towards a policy that allows a broad range of services to autostart, we probably need the autostart guidelines in place soon. The bus activated scriptlets are needed but we may be able to delay as it sounds like we only want a few services to be bus activated anyway and those services can be started as normal until we have guidelines on how they need to be set to autostart.
The scriptlets that we currently have do not work in testing. I have tested the migration path from a sysv init script using service to an upgraded package using systemd unit files and that doesn't work. at some point someone also needs to test the upgrade between systemd unit file using services but I personally haven't had time for that yet. The FPC ticket has the steps that would constitute a good test of those services.
Without guidelines that work, current work to port to systemd unit files could have several undesirable effects. Least critically would be that the ported packages would need to be revisited to have their spec files updated. Most critically, the unit file using packages would break end users systems when they upgrade the package from F15 to F14.
Thanks for the explanation of the problem.
-Toshio
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:33:33PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
If a particular piece of software is going to convert from systemv init scripts to systemd unit files we'll end up with two important rpm files. One that is before the conversion and has sysv init scripts and one that is after the conversion and has systemd unit files.
IFAIU RPM after conversion should have both - sysv init scripts and systemd services. Why do you want to remove sysvinit scripts? Both scripts can coexist without any problem.
Agreement in the packaging committee is that we want one or the other but not both because of the confusion having both will cause to people using the package. For example, if both are installed, a system admin might try to edit the SysVinit script and not understand why his changes aren't having an effect on the system.
The brief version of that is in the first note here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft#Unit_Files
-Toshio
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:33:33PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
If a particular piece of software is going to convert from systemv init scripts to systemd unit files we'll end up with two important rpm files. One that is before the conversion and has sysv init scripts and one that is after the conversion and has systemd unit files.
IFAIU RPM after conversion should have both - sysv init scripts and systemd services. Why do you want to remove sysvinit scripts? Both scripts can coexist without any problem.
Agreement in the packaging committee is that we want one or the other but not both because of the confusion having both will cause to people using the package. For example, if both are installed, a system admin might try to edit the SysVinit script and not understand why his changes aren't having an effect on the system.
Indeed it can be a problem.
The brief version of that is in the first note here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Systemd_Revised_Draft#Unit_Files
-Toshio
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, 23.02.11 13:43, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:33:33PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
If a particular piece of software is going to convert from systemv init scripts to systemd unit files we'll end up with two important rpm files. One that is before the conversion and has sysv init scripts and one that is after the conversion and has systemd unit files.
IFAIU RPM after conversion should have both - sysv init scripts and systemd services. Why do you want to remove sysvinit scripts? Both scripts can coexist without any problem.
Agreement in the packaging committee is that we want one or the other but not both because of the confusion having both will cause to people using the package. For example, if both are installed, a system admin might try to edit the SysVinit script and not understand why his changes aren't having an effect on the system.
Well, we tried hard to make this visible: "systemctl status" (or for the matter service foo status) will make visible from which source a file is read.
Lennart
On 02/23/2011 03:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs?
The backwards compatibility code would never have been added if that had ever been the intention now would it :)
If you aren't proposing that, then testing that we can successfully upgrade from a systemVinit script using package to a systemd unit file using package is a test that needs to pass.
First could you be a bit more specific what exactly is the problem so we can test for that when we host systemd test day if I'm getting you right what you are describing might fall under release blocker...
As I get it we have a package with $oldversion with the traditional init script now there is an update/upgrade that contains a $new-version with systemd native service files and that update/upgrade is failing somehow?
As Lennart mentioned have you tried chkconfig 1.3.50-1 [1] it contains few patches from him amongst [2]...
systemd "compatibility" was only added to chkconfig couple of days ago up to that point systemd and chkconfig did not compute each other :)
1. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=229902 2. http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=chkconfig.git;a=commit;h=fbe103ec4b79a095...
JBG
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:34:00PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
First could you be a bit more specific what exactly is the problem so we can test for that when we host systemd test day if I'm getting you right what you are describing might fall under release blocker...
Yes, if we're moving services to unit files then it definitely will need to be a release blocker.
As I get it we have a package with $oldversion with the traditional init script now there is an update/upgrade that contains a $new-version with systemd native service files and that update/upgrade is failing somehow?
As Lennart mentioned have you tried chkconfig 1.3.50-1 [1] it contains few patches from him amongst [2]...
yes, still happens.
-Toshio
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:34:00PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/23/2011 03:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs?
The backwards compatibility code would never have been added if that had ever been the intention now would it :)
If you aren't proposing that, then testing that we can successfully upgrade from a systemVinit script using package to a systemd unit file using package is a test that needs to pass.
First could you be a bit more specific what exactly is the problem so we can test for that when we host systemd test day if I'm getting you right what you are describing might fall under release blocker...
As I get it we have a package with $oldversion with the traditional init script now there is an update/upgrade that contains a $new-version with systemd native service files and that update/upgrade is failing somehow?
As Lennart mentioned have you tried chkconfig 1.3.50-1 [1] it contains few patches from him amongst [2]...
systemd "compatibility" was only added to chkconfig couple of days ago up to that point systemd and chkconfig did not compute each other :)
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=chkconfig.git;a=commit;h=fbe103ec4b79a095...
Looking at that patch it looks like all it does is have chkconfig forward a request on to systemd if the package included systemd unit files. If it does more than that please let me know as that would mean that we'd need to test upgrading from F14 to F15 separately from upgrading a sysv initscript using package to a systemd unit file package on F15.
-Toshio
On Wed, 23.02.11 09:56, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) wrote:
systemd "compatibility" was only added to chkconfig couple of days ago up to that point systemd and chkconfig did not compute each other :)
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=chkconfig.git;a=commit;h=fbe103ec4b79a095...
Looking at that patch it looks like all it does is have chkconfig forward a request on to systemd if the package included systemd unit files. If it does more than that please let me know as that would mean that we'd need to test upgrading from F14 to F15 separately from upgrading a sysv initscript using package to a systemd unit file package on F15.
That patch adds the glue to forward 'chkconfig on' and friends to 'systemctl enable' if necessary (and it also adds a daemon reload when changes are made to /etc/rc.d) The reverse glue (i.e. forward 'systemctl enable' to 'chkconfig on' where necessary) has been in systemd for much longer.
Lennart
On Wed, 23.02.11 07:04, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) wrote:
uh... How are you creating the spec file? In testing, I've yet to get a specfile that performs as expected. I'd be happy if you could take a look at the proposed guidelines and figure out if this is a guidelines bug, a systemd bug, a testing bug, or a bug in the packages that I'm testing with.
Did you actually check if you had at least chkconfig 1.3.50-1 installed when you tested this, as I wrote in the FPC bug?
Also, Michał's work is about adding systemd unit files, not about adding SysV init scripts, because those already exist...
Okay, I've tried all sorts of different wording to get you to understand what is being tested. I'll try one more before giving up:
No. Never did. I was suggesting to ship systemd unit files and SysV service files side by side. The current draft is tougher however, and asks packages to remove SysV scripts if service files are around, or split them into subpackages. That's more than what I asked for and I had in my original draft. But of course I am happy with this too.
Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs?
No. Never did.
If you aren't proposing that, then testing that we can successfully upgrade from a systemVinit script using package to a systemd unit file using package is a test that needs to pass.
Well, I still fail to see what the packaging guidlines for systemd unit files have to do with chkconfig, but well, maybe I am just blind.
Anyway, we don't really have to continue this discussion here. Regardless whether chkconfig is relevant for the systemd guidelines or not let's stay constructive: I think that the newer chkconfig version fixes your problems, and would like to ask you to test things with that.
Thank you,
Lennart
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 20:40 +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
I'm planning on review and update that list after alpha.
JBG
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:40:01PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
I have written handful of service definitions for packages listed there, filling bugs in bugzilla afterwards. Not a single maintainer responded :(
OTOH, one upstream accepted unit definition and will ship with next version.
W dniu 23 lutego 2011 21:48 użytkownik Tomasz Torcz tomek@pipebreaker.pl napisał:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:40:01PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
I have written handful of service definitions for packages listed there, filling bugs in bugzilla afterwards. Not a single maintainer responded :(
I hope that developers of these packages will wake up soon :)
It is possible that the problem described by Toshio Kuratomi has some connection with this. But OTOH a few of the services that I have written was accepted by maintainers
OTOH, one upstream accepted unit definition and will ship with next version.
-- Tomasz Torcz There exists no separation between gods and men: xmpp: zdzichubg@chrome.pl one blends softly casual into the other.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 02/23/2011 10:08 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
W dniu 23 lutego 2011 21:48 użytkownik Tomasz Torcz tomek@pipebreaker.pl napisał:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:40:01PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
This link contains at least in my case incorrect unit files, which were not applied. I received duplicates of bugs on my daemons. Proposed patches in these bugzillas were wrong or incomplete. There should be at least fixed links on web-page to point to current/correct version of unit files.
See: at: #656869, #617320 cronie: #656864, #617324
I have written handful of service definitions for packages listed there, filling bugs in bugzilla afterwards. Not a single maintainer responded :(
I hope that developers of these packages will wake up soon :)
Guidelines for packaging are still only a draft and developers are receiving misleading patches. You can't be surprised that people who own complicated packages are not willing to simply accept your patches or start their own units.
It is possible that the problem described by Toshio Kuratomi has some connection with this. But OTOH a few of the services that I have written was accepted by maintainers
OTOH, one upstream accepted unit definition and will ship with next version.
-- Tomasz Torcz There exists no separation between gods and men: xmpp: zdzichubg@chrome.pl one blends softly casual into the other.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 02/24/2011 02:42 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
This link contains at least in my case incorrect unit files, which were not applied. I received duplicates of bugs on my daemons. Proposed patches in these bugzillas were wrong or incomplete. There should be at least fixed links on web-page to point to current/correct version of unit files.
As I had previously mentioned I was going to update all links with current version after alpha came out.
As download all the rpms. strip out of them the systemd service file(s) post them on my web space and dig through when those service files appeared in packages and update the wiki..
JBG
2011/2/24 Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com:
On 02/23/2011 10:08 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
W dniu 23 lutego 2011 21:48 użytkownik Tomasz Torcz tomek@pipebreaker.pl napisał:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:40:01PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what is the actual state of Fedora systemd integration? I hope that there is more systemd native services than listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability
This link contains at least in my case incorrect unit files, which were not applied. I received duplicates of bugs on my daemons.
I'm so sorry that I wrote a systemd service for daemon that you maintain. I hope that you forgive me someday...
Proposed patches in these bugzillas were wrong or incomplete.
Worked ok for me. Of course everything can be improved - so the final version is best
There should be at least fixed links on web-page to point to current/correct version of unit files.
See: at: #656869, #617320 cronie: #656864, #617324
I have written handful of service definitions for packages listed there, filling bugs in bugzilla afterwards. Not a single maintainer responded :(
I hope that developers of these packages will wake up soon :)
Guidelines for packaging are still only a draft and developers are receiving misleading patches. You can't be surprised that people who own complicated packages are not willing to simply accept your patches or start their own units.
It is possible that the problem described by Toshio Kuratomi has some connection with this. But OTOH a few of the services that I have written was accepted by maintainers
OTOH, one upstream accepted unit definition and will ship with next version.
-- Tomasz Torcz There exists no separation between gods and men: xmpp: zdzichubg@chrome.pl one blends softly casual into the other.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- Marcela Mašláňová BaseOS team Brno -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
I have written handful of service definitions for packages listed there, filling bugs in bugzilla afterwards. Not a single maintainer responded :(
We really need this kind of stuff to just get committed by provenpackagers on a FESCo mandate.
Instead of micromanaging things like testing of updates, FESCo should be focusing on getting systemwide features actually implemented systemwide, rather than getting held hostage by recalcitrant maintainers.
Kevin Kofler
2011/2/23 Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at:
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
I have written handful of service definitions for packages listed there, filling bugs in bugzilla afterwards. Not a single maintainer responded :(
We really need this kind of stuff to just get committed by provenpackagers on a FESCo mandate.
Instead of micromanaging things like testing of updates, FESCo should be focusing on getting systemwide features actually implemented systemwide, rather than getting held hostage by recalcitrant maintainers.
+1
Kevin Kofler
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at said:
Instead of micromanaging things like testing of updates, FESCo should be focusing on getting systemwide features actually implemented systemwide, rather than getting held hostage by recalcitrant maintainers.
So, FESCO should be forcing maintainers that don't agree with you to do what you want to have a consistent system, but not forcing you to do something to have a consistent system because you don't agree with FESCO?
Nice.
W dniu 22 lutego 2011 20:40 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski mkkp4x4@gmail.com napisał: [..]
Currently I have quite a lot of work, but I make a systemd services pledge - I'll write three services per week if 10 other people do the same http://www.pledgebank.com/systemdservices
"So far, only Michał Piotrowski, the Pledge Creator, has signed this pledge."
Fedora - most active Linux user community - ever :D
-
Bill Nottingham -
Chris Adams -
Colin Walters -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Kevin Kofler -
Lennart Poettering -
Marcela Mašláňová -
Michał Piotrowski -
Tomasz Torcz -
Toshio Kuratomi