Bug#732981: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH

2013-12-25 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] Ian Jackson > Michael Stapelberg writes ("Re: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: > ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH"): > > Hi Ian, > > > Would you accept a patch to fix this problem in Debian's systemd (of > > > course, I

Bug#732981: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH

2013-12-24 Thread Michael Stapelberg
Hi Ian, Ian Jackson writes: > Michael Stapelberg writes ("Re: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: > ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH"): >> Hi Ian, >> > Would you accept a patch to fix this problem in Debian's systemd (of >> >

Bug#732981: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH

2013-12-24 Thread Ian Jackson
Michael Stapelberg writes ("Re: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH"): > Hi Ian, > > Would you accept a patch to fix this problem in Debian's systemd (of > > course, I think it would be better if such a thing w

Bug#732981: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH

2013-12-24 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] Ian Jackson > > I personally find this a bit thin on rationale. I.e. the policy only > > states that one can expect certain binaries and that one should use > > $PATH, but it doesn’t explain _why_. > > > > Maybe you can clarify? > > The purpose is that the administrator can override existing

Bug#732981: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH

2013-12-24 Thread Michael Stapelberg
Hi Ian, Ian Jackson writes: >> Lennart replied that using $PATH makes it easy to end up running a >> binary that is not the one the service file author had in mind. >> [etc.] > > I'm not really convinced by this. And I can see why. In your reply you state that the intention is for the admin to be

Bug#732981: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH

2013-12-24 Thread Ian Jackson
Michael Stapelberg writes ("Re: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH"): > I asked in #systemd on IRC about this. Thanks. > Lennart replied that using $PATH makes it easy to end up running a > binary that is not the one the

Bug#732981: [Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH

2013-12-24 Thread Michael Stapelberg
Hi Ian, Ian Jackson writes: > systemd.service(5) says: > >ExecStart= >Commands with their arguments that are executed when this service >is started. The first argument must be an absolute path name. > > This should be capable of handling a bare command name, to be

Bug#732981: ExecStart et al should be capable of honouring PATH

2013-12-23 Thread Ian Jackson
Package: systemd Version: 204-5 systemd.service(5) says: ExecStart= Commands with their arguments that are executed when this service is started. The first argument must be an absolute path name. This should be capable of handling a bare command name, to be found in