equivalent of chkconfig

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Tue Aug 18 11:00:35 UTC 2015

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:52:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Ralf Mardorf
><ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:32:42 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>> unfounded FUD
>> What next?
>> Actually everything I pointed out is correct, it's not unfounded FUD.
>> Even you mentioned that not all services are ported over.
>> It's not that hard for me to make a profound comparison between an
>> Arch Linux install, that finished the transition 3 years ago and
>> follows systemd from upstream and an Ubuntu Wily install, since they
>> are running on the same machine and I'm using an upstream systemd
>> with all services ported.
>> You actually don't know what you are talking about, if you call
>> Ubuntus systemd implementation transparent. It's a mess, the
>> transition is _not_ finished, init related files are spread over
>> different locations.
>You might have a point if systemd upstream didn't provide
>systemd-sysv-generator and systemd-sysv-install.
>Ubuntu and Debian are simply using upstream tools that allow for
>hybrid init systems.

As pointed out by previous mails.

The FHS still allows distros to put files to different locations,
e.g. Ubuntu's /etc/init.d/ could be /etc/rc.d/ or /usr/bin/ for other

So the well-known service-wrapper individually written for those
different distros made it easy to write scripts e.g. checking the

Now Ubuntu does provide a wrapper, that assumed a script tries to check
the status, instead does provide what systemctl status provides.

1. systemctl status provides this kind of status information, so why
doing it by service too?
2. Now all old scripts usable with different distros using the
service wrapper can't be used with Ubuntu anymore.

This issue isn't caused by systemd upstream.

Full text of "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto"

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list