Support for legacy init script actions for systemd services

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 06/26/2012 11:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= <johannbg at gmail.com> writes:
>> On 06/26/2012 10:12 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>> Breaking "service foo action" reason was just an unnecessary
>>> regression that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
>> Agreed and honestly this sudden turnaround now smells a bit like RHEL
>> "7" was a big contributing factor to that decision since this has been a
>> know problem from the start..
> I think you're right, and the reason why that's an issue is that people
> who were previously on RHEL6 are being exposed to systemd for the first
> time.  And they don't like it.

What's more alarming to me is that this is being handled in Fedora but 
not in RHEL where it should be from my pov since in the RHEL Users != 
Fedora Users
RHEL could just continue to use sysv/upstart for all If they wanted to 
if it's so important to their customer base...

>
>>> Asking upstreams to "adopt" things that used to be done in
>>> distributions (and therefore were consistent within a distribution)
>>> without suggesting a good convention to follow (suggesting a high
>>> probability that they will not be consistent, and distributions will
>>> not be "allowed" to make them consistent) sounds like a change for the
>>> worse from the original state (it is, after all, one of the primary
>>> roles of a distribution to collect various differing upstreams and
>>> make a consistent OS from them) - but, well, the result will not be
>>> different from any other inter-project inconsistencies, so I don't
>>> view this as a "problem".
>> I would rather argue that various upstreams should reach agreement on
>> how things should properly be done and moved forward
> I don't presume to speak for all upstreams, but I can tell you that
> postgresql in particular is not likely to want to get involved here.
> They have other things to worry about, and have always thought that
> things like initscripts are mainly a packager's province anyway.
> But the big picture from our point of view is that "service postgresql
> initdb" has been the way to initialize a postgresql database for quite a
> few years, on many platforms besides Red-Hat-based ones.  *We* are the
> ones who are out of step, and only somebody blinded by the Systemd Is
> The One True Way faith would fail to recognize that.

I was speaking genericly on distributions vs upstreams but since you are 
referring here specifically to postgresql why was it decided to do be 
done in the init script in the first place instead of standalone script?

>
>> I'm pretty sure that this administrators muscle memory which has been
>> referred to no longer exist amongst the administrators in the Fedora
>> project
> I beg to differ.  If Bill doesn't get his wrist slapped by FPC, I'll
> be implementing this for postgresql tomorrow, because I'm tired of
> hearing complaints about it.

Which in turn will confusion every administrator that has been custom to 
do it the *new* way so you probably wind up having to workaround that as 
well one way or another yup a fracking mess to deal with...

If administrators have not gone accustom to systemd after what ca 2 
years now they never will...

JBG