Bug#727708: init system thoughts
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 05:52:03PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> > Reservations with systemd
> > -------------------------
> [...]
> > Basically, systemd would be more compelling to me if it tried to do
> > less. I don't expect to persuade systemd advocates of this, as I think
> > it amounts to different basic views of the world, but the basic approach
> > here is probably the single biggest factor influencing my position.
>
> On the other hand even when using upstart as an init replacement, we'll
> continue to use large chunks of systemd (logind, other dbus
> services). I personally think "less is more" would only be a convincing
> argument if we actually would not need the aditional features.
I'm referring to features that I don't think we'll need, not to logind
et al. So far I feel that the debates about those seem to be a bit
circular and go something like this:
A: This feature of systemd conflicts with something else; I'd rather
we didn't use it.
B: You can disable that, you know.
A: OK, let's disable it.
B: But you shouldn't disable it because that would make Debian systemd
less compatible with systemd on other distributions.
A: ...
> I also have one question: your mail doesn't mention the integration
> problems with logind into a system that uses upstart and not systemd as
> init. Do you think this will not be an issue?
I think the amount of time spent arguing about it has already exceeded
the total amount of effort it would ever take.
That said, I rather suspect that it was a tactical error for Upstart
people to choose to use the logind code from systemd, even though that
involved less reimplementation of wheels. In the long term it would
probably be better to write an independent implementation of the same
interfaces or fork the existing code to a different source package,
partly because that would help to dispose of the idea that Upstart is
really dependent on systemd anyway, and partly because it would be
friendlier to the Debian systemd maintainers.
No doubt that could still be done. It's unfortunate that it's not one
of the components listed as "Reimplementable Independently", but I guess
that just means more manual effort to keep track of the interface; and
this would move the grunt work from the shoulders of the Debian systemd
maintainers to those of the Upstart maintainers, which is probably the
right place for it to lie.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: