3 Feb
2016
3 Feb
'16
10:34 p.m.
On 02/03/2016 12:52 PM, Warren Young wrote:
Probably because they want to support a read-only root filesystem, working toward "stateless" systems.
How does that explain anything? The same RPM that installed the service file can create a hard link or symlink giving the command an alternate name.
It might not be the package that includes the symlink. It may be the admin who wants it. Where the root fs is read-only, this feature is an alternative to creating a symlink.
It seems to be a thing that people want, in any case: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/7759