On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:31:46AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: The packaging guidelines actually use 'unit file' as the term https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Filesystem_locations "Packages with systemd unit files *must* put them into %{_unitdir}. %{_unitdir} evaluates to /lib/systemd/system" From that I'd say any RPM putting unit files into /etc/systemd/system is not compliant, regardless of whether its a full unit file, or a override unit file in a '.d' directory. A unit file provides configuration for a service (or other type of systemd resource). So saying 'configuration file, not a unit file' doesn't make conceptual sense - they're one & the same thing. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:31:46AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: Given that the packaging guidelines are vague, I'd say theres nothing that explicitly prevents him from adding configuration there. That said, it seems to make very little sense to do so, given that there is no precident, and there is lots of precident for alternate locations (environment settings should go in /etc/sysconfig, i.e. %sysconfdir, application specific settings in private /etc/<app> subdirectory, and so on). At the very least I would argue that configuration in /etc/systemd should be configuration specific to the systemd daemon (see the various *.conf files there), and stuff under .../system is clearly for the placement of unit files. Adding non-unit files to that location just makes systemd have to iterate longer when reloading units as it scans the directory there. Neil