On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 05.02.2013 17:29, schrieb Jouke Witteveen:
But it is called netctl, and not netd. Applications usually name their
/etc/ folder after themselves, that's why I suggest /etc/netctl/
But systemctl interfaces /etc/systemd and not /etc/systemctl.
Actually, systemctl only interfaces with systemd via dbus calls and never even touched /etc/systemd/.
I meant: netctl mimics systemctl, but the configuration files for systemctl are not stored in /etc/systemctl.
We should go with either /etc/network or /etc/netctl. It's your call Thomas, I'm fine with either.
Actually, it's you call - but in my opinion, /etc/network is a very generic name which may be used by something else in the future.
Agreed. Another possibility is /etc/network/profiles.
You could omit all [Install] data and create the symlinks yourself.
Yes, I will. At first I thought it would be good to use [install], since it allows systemd to alter its logic, but than I saw the systemctl error message when the [install] section is missing and that more or less suggests netctl should place its symlinks itself.
We could have a feature request to systemd for a configuration like this:
[Install] Message=Please use netctl(1) to activate this unit.
Looks reasonable.