I'm not sure your analogy makes sense?
While it's true that systemd breaks modularity on many things (for
example, systemd implementations do not handle dns properly), it's
difficult for me to understand how to from there to "systemd
configuration files are equivalent to all documentation".
What information would be lost, here?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Antoine Jacoutot <ajacoutot@bsdfrog.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 07:21:45PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 07:08:02PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:53:14PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>> > > Stumbled across /usr/local/lib/systemd/ the other day, so here's the
>> > > clean up.
>> > >
>> > > The configure script has no knob for it so simply remove the files in
>> > > post-install.
>> > >
>> > > `make plist' works fine and also strips two old directories.
>> > >
>> > > Feedback? Comments?
>> >
>> > There are multiple instances on this in ports. They do no harm imho and may be
>> > useful for reference.
>> Manuals and documentation are for reference, these service files are
>> just confusing and useless imho.
>>
>> We have indeed quite a few systemd specific (service) files laying
>> around; I don't see the point in leaving them: Why not keeping local
>> installations clean? Surely they're "harmless" but I find systemd
>> (service) files simply confusing and useless on my OpenBSD machines.
>
> Can you also clean all the Linux, AIX, Solaris etc. documentation from
> /usr/local/share/doc/* please. From all ports. Same with all man pages that
> ports install and that have reference to system V, systemd, openrc, /proc or
> in general things that don't apply to OpenBSD.
> I am sorry but what you say makes no sense.
>
> $ find /usr/local/lib/systemd/ | wc
> 15 15 783
> $ du -sh /usr/local/lib/systemd/
> 30.0K /usr/local/lib/systemd/
>
> OMG it's huge and not clean!!!
>
> --
> Antoine
>
No comments:
Post a Comment