| |||||||||||||
McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?Posted Aug 17, 2012 19:53 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596)In reply to: McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux? by Cyberax Parent article: McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?
> Why should it?
Because this was the behaviour of the system before systemd is introduced.
> Do it yourself, if you want to use SysV scripts.
I don't want to use SysV scripts. I just want to have a computer that doesn't become inaccessible to other machines on my network when my wireless connection flakes out. I am just pointing out an area where systemd's backwards-compatibility with existing init scripts in the wild is not complete!
(Log in to post comments)
McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux? Posted Aug 17, 2012 20:30 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Nope. SysV doesn't do anything with dependencies. It's entirely up to script's author to deal with them. It might have been handled in your particular scripts, but it's certainly not universal.
McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux? Posted Aug 19, 2012 20:19 UTC (Sun) by Eckhart (guest, #74500) [Link]
> Nope. SysV doesn't do anything with dependencies. It's entirely up to script's author to deal with them. It might have been handled in your particular scripts, but it's certainly not universal.
Cortana just wants to point out that there are some hacks in SysV init scripts that are not supported anymore with systemd.
McRae: Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux? Posted Aug 19, 2012 20:24 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] I don't think systemd must support every single hack that is possible in SysV init scripts if it is trivial to do the same thing natively and it works better afterwards, too.
|
|||||||||||||