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

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:
> | 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.

If a daemon supports socket activation then there would need to be separate 
work done to write a systemd unit and a sysvinit script.

If a daemon doesn't support socket activation then IMHO the ideal situation 
would be to have a program that takes a systemd unit file as input and creates 
a sysvinit script.  That would reduce the amount of effort and reduce the 
amount of low quality sysvinit scripts that are out there (and I've written my 
share of such bad scripts).

My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/

Reply to: