Skip to content

update systemd stuff for arch #206

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: hovudstraum
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

icxes
Copy link
Contributor

@icxes icxes commented Jul 27, 2025

To show that your contribution is compatible with the MIT License, please include the following text somewhere in this PR description:
This PR complies with the DCO; https://developercertificate.org/

Nothing has changed since the last time we talked about this (what can I say, it works for me). If you notice or remember something I guess I guess I can take a stab at it or you could do it yourself. If there's going to be new users I think this version is a bit easier than the one where you have to go and edit systemd service files

Oh, should note that since prior to this people were copying their configs anyway, this change (should) not break anything for existing users, who can (and by default, do) just use their customized service files like before

@9001
Copy link
Owner

9001 commented Jul 27, 2025

thx, good timing -- if we're making this change, then the sooner the better at this point :>

though I think @Morganamilo should make the call -- this is intended to make it easier to specify what user to run copyparty as, without having to edit the systemd files, and also adding a user-service. Is this something we want?

also, heads-up: there will be a new release in less than 12 hours; it would be good to have this packaged for archlinux when that happens.

@icxes
Copy link
Contributor Author

icxes commented Jul 27, 2025

memory (and thinking in general) is a bit hazy due to first being sleep deprived for a few days then sleeping way too much, but as i recall the point of the normal service is so you can run copyparty at whatever location you want in the filesystem (as whatever user you choose), whereas with the user service you're running it as a user program, probably serving on $HOME/copyparty or something

so you would run systemctl --user start copyparty and it should just run it as your user, and you edit config at $HOME/.config/copyparty (so you don't need root for anything)

while if you wanted to run it as a system service you run systemctl start copyparty@foo and edit config at /etc/copyparty.d/, you can't do any of this without root

the downside is it still needs the user to know these things (where to edit config/how to get something basic running) which i guess is usually achieved by the program itself having a wizard/the readme being readable/the program having an arch wiki page, but that's a bit out of scope for this

but yeah someone with a slightly better brain for this stuff should look at it before merging at least

@9001
Copy link
Owner

9001 commented Jul 27, 2025

thx for your work btw, good stuff 👌

@icxes
Copy link
Contributor Author

icxes commented Jul 29, 2025

while testing the user service, I did notice the logs say

WARNING: found config files in [/home/fgsfds/.config/copyparty]: copyparty.conf
config files are not expected here, and will NOT be loaded (unless your setup is intentionally hella funky)

which would obviously not be true since that's where the user service loads the config from, so that would need to be fixed before any release with these changes. just a cosmetic thing really since everything works fine with the user service, but still

i guess i'm technically the maintainer for this version? not 100%
on how these things go
icxes and others added 3 commits August 2, 2025 20:34
the user services look for a $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/copyparty/copyparty.conf by default, so this warning is no longer necessary
@icxes
Copy link
Contributor Author

icxes commented Aug 2, 2025

87ba7fa depends on #439

added in 971360e

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants