| |||||||||||||
McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:17 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)In reply to: McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux? by cortana Parent article: McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux? Is there some very good reason why smbd and nmbd need to be launched by the same script? Because the fix that seems trivially obvious to this armchair general is to have separate smbd.service and nmbd.service units.
(Log in to post comments)
McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux? Posted Aug 17, 2012 15:46 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
That's just the way Debian's samba init script is written. I was just pointing it out as a specific examine of an instance of impedance mismatch between the real world and systemd's model, in support of dlang's statement that "systemd doesn't satisfy all the functionality of the system it replaces".
McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux? Posted Aug 19, 2012 6:27 UTC (Sun) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
SysV init doesn't have support for dependencies. Adding a call to "service restart smbd" in the networking start scripts is a horrible, horrible hack.
If we're going to talk about horrible, horrible hacks, the obvious thing to do is add an smbd sysv init script, and an nmbd sysv init script, and have the one call the other. Meanwhile, if you use systemd, it will just work.
|
|||||||||||||