On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com wrote:

Hello,

I have a couple of questions regarding the new feature just approved, in particular regarding the "scope" section:

If it helps, this feature actually wasn't approved - which is why it's been moved to the FeaturePageIncomplete category.

The FESCo ticket can be seen here: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/872

And minutes/logs from the fesco meeting are here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/meetingminutes/2012-June/000234.htm...

There is some guidance from fesco for the feature owner to work with the FPC on new guidelines.

That said - someone may still find it interesting to answer your questions (or you may have better luck on the discussion tab of the wiki page, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Systemd-unit-cleanup ) -- but I just wanted to point out that it was *not* approved as a feature in yesterday's meeting.

-Robyn

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Systemd-unit-cleanup#Scope

1. Change PIDFile=/var/run/foo fields to point to PIDFile=/run/foo instead

Is there a rpm macro for the "/run" directory? I was using "--with-pid-dir=%{_localstatedir}/run" in a SPEC file for %configure. Maybe there's something similar already declared into the expansion of %configure for Fedora 18?

What should I do if the pid directory is specified into the configuration file of the daemon I'm mantaining? Can the user still run with its own config upon successful upgrade to Fedora 18?

2. Remove various entries in units which are no longer necessary since

they are systemd defaults for unit simplification

Where can I get such list? (Git, wiki pages, man pages)

Thanks & regards, --Simone

-- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). -- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

On 06/19/2012 10:24 AM, Simone Caronni wrote:

Hello,

I have a couple of questions regarding the new feature just approved, in particular regarding the "scope" section:

The feature did not get approved hence I have scheduled it for future release cycles ( F19/F20 essentially after I have finished migrating all the legacy sysv init scripts ) that is if I will be working on it at all due to the fact that FESCO seems to be setting the direction of the project to not participate in the de-balkanization of the Linux platform which is the one of the reason I jumped on systemd train in the first place. The other reason being my QA duty's to ensure the migration was being done properly.

JBG