Re: A few observations about systemd
]] Guus Sliepen
| On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 02:59:09PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
|
| > | How hard can it be to
| > | support both sysvinit and systemd? It's just two little files to
| > | maintain instead of one. We also have/had both .menu and .desktop
| > | files. Sure, they will be out of sync once in a while, but other than
| > | that I really don't see the problem.
| >
| > The problem with this is you get even more combinatorial explosion and
| > less testing, particularly for packages that have few users.
|
| I don't see any combinatorial explosion, at most a doubling in effort to
| maintain a small part of a package. Less testing, I agree.
«even more»; we get this for any other optional parts of packages too.
Choice for choice's sake is bad. There are often reasonable causes to
give people choice, but not in every decision.
| > (Ignoring the kFreeBSD side of things for a bit): Why? As others have
| > pointed out, systemd uses sysvinit scripts just fine.
|
| Yes, but some people seem also to be saying that SysV init scripts are
| hard to write and buggy, and that one of the benefits of systemd is
| the easy config files.
|
| Also, if systemd would use init scripts just fine, then one could
| argue to just use SysV init scripts for everything, since then there
| is no extra effort involved and people can easily swap init systems.
You can, sure, but if we accept the premise that systemd units are
easier to write than init scripts it means we get fewer bugs that way.
Also, if you want to use some of the more advanced features like socket
activation you need to write unit files.
| I don't know, but it seems to me that having half of the daemons use
| SysV init scripts and the other half systemd config files is the worst
| case. For example, is the dependency information in the LSB headers
| enough for systemd to order the starting of those daemons correctly
| with respect to those who use systemd natively?
Yes, that's sufficient.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: