Why abandon something that already exists, and some people continue to
I’m not sure where you are heading here … the Director daemon is new in
1.7 and has a new systemd service file introduced in the source code.
No-one removed something which existed before.
Sorry, I did not realise that.
I read the original comment “I wanted to upgrade the director to the current
version.” and assumed that this meant there was a previous version of the
(now) systemd-only startup script.
Apologies for the misinterpretation.
Is it so hard for the official Icinga2 installer to support both systemd
and non-systemd distributions?
There is no such thing called “icinga2 installer”. Each product has its own
package, and provides the necessary configuration files to actually run
Okay, so there are several “Icinga2 installers”, or packages providing the
necessary startup files if you prefer. Bad phrasing on my part.
Be it apache config for Icinga Web, Systemd service files for Icinga
2, etc. And yes, it is hard to maintain everything and test everything
prior to a release. I’d rather only use one init system than 3 different
I can understand a preference for keeping things simple, but I simply wanted
to point out that there might be some noticeable proportion of your userbase
who want (or need) to continue using sysvinit.
If the Icinga team decides at some point that this is not a sufficient
proportion to continue supporting it, so be it, but I’d rather make the
request than go unnoticed.
As said, this was for a quick solution if you really need it. I fairly
doubt that someone from us will jump right in and create a sysvinit file
for you to use.
Again, apologies - I did not realise that this was something new which has
never previously had a sysvinit script for it.
If you want, you can also look into this and help @Josh out.
Sure, I’ll see how much the service file differs from others which have sysvinit
Thanks for the overall clarification - that’s useful.