2013/4/3 Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com>: > On 3 April 2013 15:51, Samuel Stirtzel <s.stirt...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> When we decide that we handle standard behavior different than the >> rest of the world, then this patch is basically a fork of systemd. >> Also we tell every affected software developer: >> "No your software won't work with OE-core / Yocto Project without >> adaption, we are incompatible with the systemd standard to make life >> more comfortable for (some of) us" > > Changing the default target depending on the use of the image isn't > really the same as forking systemd, and we're not making anything > incompatible.
Please read above what I wrote to Richard. > >>> How would you implement this? Register the alternative in systemd.bb >>> defaulting to graphical, and then switch it in every image recipe in >>> oe-core/meta-oe/etc that doesn't use an X or Wayland (patches coming >>> shortly) session? >> >> If this works why not? >> It sounds like a good idea, because this way would not break anything, >> and we would be compatible with the standard systemd. > > Obviously the nuances of my sentiment were lost as it was transcribed to > ASCII. > > I'm advocating changing the default target to multi-user and then > patching the two recipes where X session scripts are packaged to also > set the target to graphical. People switching to systemd who don't > use the standard X sessions (they roll their own, or don't use X, or > whatever) will notice quickly that the default target needs to be > changed, and can do it in their graphical startup recipes. > > You're suggesting leaving the default target as graphical and changing > uncountable numbers of *image recipes* to override the default target, > the alternative being errors in the log. Image inheritance will hopefully reduce the number of required changes. > > So far "the community" disagrees on the approach here - we've had > vocal objections to errors in the log for any image, changing the > default target, and the other proposals. The seen error is a warning IIRC. Breaking something to fix a warning somewhere else seems like a bold move. Being incompatible with systemd standards to archive this seems to be a very odd compromise. > > We *do* need a way of changing the default target. Do we at least all > agree that update-alternatives is a logical way of changing it on a > per-image basis? Yes it is required to have the possibility to change the target where needed. I guess update-alternatives will do the job. -- Regards Samuel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
