On 2019-09-17, Sven Joachim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2019-09-17 11:10 -0500, David Wright wrote: > >> >> Well, the only link *needed* is init, hence its dependency on package >> init, whose sole function is to keep the number of init configurations >> more than zero and less than two. >> >> The rest of those links just mean that I can read, say, a 60 line man >> page for shutdown instead of the 1270 lines of man systemctl. >> >> So it does seem odd to name the package after some links of >> convenience rather than its prime function of associating systemd >> (/lib/systemd/systemd) with /sbin/init. > > The other symlinks are also pretty important, since other software on > the system relies on them. For instance, the kernel invokes > /sbin/poweroff and /sbin/reboot to power off or reboot the machine under > some circumstances. Have a look at kernel/reboot.c in the Linux > kernel tree.
In the beginning, the symlinks had nothing to do with SysV and one expressed bewilderment (or maybe it was rancor?) at the systemd-sysv package name and its totally irrelevant allusion to SysV; then, in a certain softening of that radical posture, the symlinked runlevels were said to not necessarily be SysV specific (as if the steering wheel and tires of a Chevy Camaro weren't specific to the Camaro because other cars exist that have steering wheels and tires, too), and now the claim seems to be that, with the exception of init, the runlevel symlinks are superfluous, and it is therefore curious "to name the package" systemd-sysv "after some links" (kind of admitting by that observation, I guess, that those links are indeed related to SysV, but then again sort of ignoring, also, systemd's top billing in the package name). > Cheers, Sven > > -- "I understand what you’re saying, and your comments are valuable, but I’m gonna ignore your advice." -- Fantastic Mr. Fox
