systemd acceptance, packaging guidelines (was Re: systemd and changes)

[Jeff Garzik]

On 08/23/2010 11:06 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> (intentionally breaking thread)
>
> Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger at gmail.com) said:
>> Maybe I should start a new thread since this isn't really a bug, but it is
>> a blocker -- we need to get some packaging guidelines out for systemd.
>> I think that the last message on the subject was this one:
>>
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/139483.html
>>
>> Could I get a reply as to whether that looks right?
>
> - At the moment, /bin/systemctl is in systemd-units. (I think this
>    is a bug. Filed.)
> - As long as we're still shipping upstart, the sysv scripts would still
>    need included, and would still need to be set up with chkconfig the
>    same way.
>
>> As noted in the post, I'm not sure if the outlined procedure correctly
>> implements level 1.
>
> I believe it does.
>
>> We should probably also have the scriptlets for implementing level 3 for the
>> things basic to the system that require that.
>
> My reading of your mail is different - the case we want to handle is case
> #2 (installation of something that starts by default - dbus, NM, etc.)
>
> As I understand it, they would be the same, with the addition of:
>
> %post
> if [ 0$1 -eq ]; then
> 	/bin/systemctl enable<foo.service>
> fi
>
> with foo.service having the appropriate [Install] stanza that says where it
> should start up. As with SysV scripts, we generally do not start services
> by default, so this is rare.
>
> Case #3 that you mentioned is something I don't think we have in Fedora -
> we never start services on package installation.
>
> This, however, is just packaging guidelines. From readng the thread, there
> are many things that I think people would like covered with systemd before
> they would feel comfortable with it. So, I'm going to attempt to quantify
> what would need to be tested and verified. This document focuses on
> backwards compatibility. THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY VERBOSE. Comments, changes,
> etc. welcome.
>
> BOOTUP
> - System boots successfully to GUI, when configured.
> - System boots successfully to text mode, when configured.
> - System properly handles being passed [1-5], 'single', 'S', 's', '-s',
>    booting to the appropriate 'runlevel' (0 and 6 can still work,
>    but they're sort of pointless anyway) When booted in this manner,
>    '5' will bring up a GUI, and '3' will not.
>
> SINGLE USER MODE
> - Exiting single user mode properly returns to the default state.
> - single-user mode output is correctly displayed on the console.

File /etc/inittab should keep working at the same level it is now.

	Jeff