equivalent of chkconfig

Tom H tomh0665 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 18 16:03:07 UTC 2015

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Tom H [2015-08-18  5:40 -0400]:

>> Unless Ubuntu decides "we're going to provide native systemd units for
>> all packages that have sysvrc scripts in Ubuntu version X", these
>> units'll be provided at whatever pace the maintainers of packages with
>> sysvrc scripts choose to do so; and it's not a big deal.
> It's not a question of "decide", but to actually go ahead and do it.
> It's quite obviously better to have native units as they are both
> upstreamable (and thus improve inter-distro collaboration and
> documentation), and allow you to actually use the powers of a modern
> init system.

I guess that Ubuntu doesn't function this way but what I meant by
"decides" was Ubuntu "management" deciding that all packages must
provide systemd units.

> Over time this will happen, but I doubt that SysV init scripts will
> entirely go away anytime soon. At least you need the support for
> third-party packages, and LSB mandates them.

I didn't mean that sysvrc scripts disappear. I meant that both be
provided, at least at long as Debian allows sysvinit as an init, so
that daemons be launched and managed via systemd units rather than by
sysvrc scripts.

I don't think that Fedora still provides sysvrc scripts for packages
that have systemd units; I doubt that Arch does but I don't use it.
Gentoo's openrc scripts don't have LSB headers. Slackware doesn't have
sysvrc scripts. The LSB's pretty much irrelevant outside of Debian and
its derivatives. What's a leader without followers? A man taking a

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list