[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: systemd (security) bugs (was: init system question)

Sune Vuorela writes ("Bug#727708: systemd (security) bugs (was: init system question)"):
> Note that the non-pid1-parts of systemd, like logind for example, are pieces 
> we need no matter what init system we choose. The question is more if we can 
> use them as provided by upstream or we need to adapt them in Debian.

Whether Debian' "uses" something is a lot more granular than that.
It seems to me that there are plenty of systems which could do without
logind, at least if we're not using systemd as pid 1.

This leads me to a question which I find myself asking, after reading
the systemd debate page:

If we were to adopt systemd as pid 1, which sections of the systemd
source code would we probably want to adopt as well ?  Or to put it
another way, which other existing programs would be obsoleted ?

This is important for two reasons that I can think of:

Firstly, it is touted as an advantage of systemd that it provides in a
good and proper way this other functionality; it seems that the
systemd designers consider that these other ad-hoc programs or
facilities are crufty and in need of replacement.  So I would like to
know which these other facilities are, that are going to be improved.

Secondly, if we are, for example, to compare the total LOC count, or
the bug list, or the CVE history, of systemd, with that of a
non-systemd system, we need to know which parts of the old system are


Reply to: