systemd system unit files and UsrMove

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 01:02:11PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 17.02.12 10:46, Nathaniel McCallum (nathaniel at natemccallum.com) wrote:
> 
> > I'm a fan of systemd [1]. And although I didn't like the fact that unit
> > files were stored in /lib, I understood the rationale since there was no
> > /share. However, I've just recently discovered [2] that after UsrMove unit
> > files will be stored in /usr/lib. Can we not do better than this? And I'd
> > really rather not work around the problem [3].
> > 
> > Seriously, please don't do this.
> 
> The unit files are in /lib for a couple of reasons. Firstly, before the
> /usr merge there was no /share, so we had to place them in
> /lib. Secondly I think that /lib is actually the better fit for them,
> simply because I consider them closely related to the code they wrap,
> and code belongs in lib, libexec or bin. How does that matter? Well, the
> unit files are very often dependendent on/closely related to the
> architecture, and make little sense to share them between archs. This
> applies to a couple of units we ship with systemd itself (for example
> the hugepages mount unit), but even more often to unit we don't ship
> ourselves (think mcelog). And distributing these unit files among a
> number of dirs would seriously suck.
> 
This sounds like the unit files belong in %{_libdir} now?  However, that
would mean that they can't go into noarch packages.  So we probably need to
know a little more about just how architecture dependent these unit files
can be.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120220/370e92f4/attachment.sig>