state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

Lennart Poettering mzerqung at
Wed Feb 23 23:05:30 UTC 2011

On Wed, 23.02.11 13:43, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger at wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:33:33PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > 2011/2/23 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at>:
> > > 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 Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the devel mailing list