[arch-general] On /etc/conf.d deprecation

Curtis Shimamoto sugar.and.scruffy at gmail.com
Sun Dec 9 18:15:50 EST 2012

On 12/09/12 at 05:23pm, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2012, Curtis Shimamoto wrote:
> >On 12/09/12 at 04:01am, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> >>Imagine that in /usr unit file the daemon is being called as "binary
> >>-d". So I create the /etc unit file that supersedes it and calls it
> >>as "blah -d -n1". Then the package gets updated and the /usr unit
> >>file changes to "binary -d --lock=/whatever/path".
> >>
> >>As you can see I won't get the update because I've overriden the
> >>unit file, I won't get any warning either, but if the original unit
> >>file called "binary -d --lock=/whatever/path $BLAH_ARGS" there would
> >>have been no such problem.
> >
> >Keep some kind of configuration fine and use the .include feature of
> >systemd units to source the config with EnvironmentFile=.
> Hi Curtis, I can't see how the .include directive would help in the
> case I mentioned. But even in other cases that it helps, I think
> it's a much more heavyweight solution to the problem, than the
> /etc/conf.d EnvironmentFile. What do you think?
> Dimitris

Yeah, I wrote back shortly after I sent that mentioning that it really
wouldn't work, after I had thought it through a bit.

I am not sure what you mean by heavyweight solution. If what you mean is
that is will have to check for and then source a secondary file of the
same name, I really don't think this would matter as it only has to do
it once.  Also, this seems like it is probably nearly the same amount of
work for the system as sourcing a configuration file. Could you explain
what you mean by heavyweight?

I do agree with the fact that things should move towards following
upstream, and the use of conf.d specifically should be deprecated.  That
doesn't necessarily mean that I think that you, the user, should not be
able to create a config file on your own to source and use in the

Personally, I have only made use of the .include feature once, and for
something very simple.  This issue of yours has made me think that it
might be neat if there was a service variable to append to the ExecStart
line.  Thus making the .include feature more robust, as you could add to
instead of replacing the actual command.

Curtis Shimamoto
sugar.and.scruffy at gmail.com

More information about the arch-general mailing list