Re: [Lennart Poettering] Re: A few observations about systemd
Tollef Fog Heen <email@example.com> writes:
> ]] Gergely Nagy
> | FYI, there are upstreams who provide initscripts in their source
> | package. systemd is yet another burden on them that they have to
> | maintain, and makes their lives miserable.
> You make it sound like systemd requires you to make an extra effort to
> make stuff work. It doesn't. SystemV initscripts work just fine. If
> you want to do stuff like socket activation and so on you need to make
> an extra effort, but that is in no way required to use systemd. While
> the support for sysvinit scripts can be compiled out of systemd I have
> absolutely no plans to do so for the overseeable future, if ever.
If not using the goodies provided by systemd, there's absolutely no
point in writing a service file to use with it, imo. And as you wrote,
socket activation does need extra effort. Not just in the service file,
but in the code aswell.
Yes, upstream can choose to ignore systemd, just like systemd upstream
choses to ignore anything non-Linux. But that's not going to make users
happy. It will make distributions that default to systemd, and have the
daemon in question (syslog-ng) in their default install even less happy.
At that point, there really is no choice but to go ahead and do the
extra effort. It wasn't trivial, and now we need to take extra care not
to break our systemd support.
Hello, extra maintainance burden!
(Do note, that I like some of the stuff systemd can bring to the table,
and I belive that going the extra mile in syslog-ng's case was worth the
trouble, but it's still extra code we'll have to carry. Much like the
AIX and Solaris workarounds.)