[OE-core] [PATCH v4] systemd: set default.target to multi-user.target

[Samuel Stirtzel]

2013/4/3 Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com>:
> On 3 April 2013 15:51, Samuel Stirtzel <s.stirtzel at 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