Re: Making daemons compatible with systemd [was: Minimal init]
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> From what I've seen in Lennart's posts, adding systemd support doesn't
>> seem to be too complicated.
> No. No changes at all are necessary to be compatible with systemd.
> This is a very impressive feature of systemd; at the same time, this is
> what complicates systemd, and creates a dependency on cgroups.
I was referring to socket activation.
> Is that cool? Is that bloat? I say yes to both.
I'd rather avoid the word "bloat" in this discussion, as it's very