Re: [Lennart Poettering] Re: A few observations about systemd
Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi> writes:
> Gergely Nagy <algernon <at> balabit.hu> writes:
>> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala <at> pp1.inet.fi> writes:
>>
>> >> Whatever its features, if we have to jump through a large heap of hoops
>> >> to get it to work at all, or to make life for maintainers of daemon
>> >> packages not a complete nightmare, it's not likely to become the default
>> >> in Debian any time soon.
>> >
>> > I think the life of many maintainers of daemon packages is a "complete
>> > nightmare" now with sysvinit, compared to what it would be with systemd.
>>
>> 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.
>
> It's one of the goals of systemd to allow more upstreams to provide reasonable
> init scripts. Adding systemd may create more work for upstreams that insist on
> providing a suitable script for every possible distro, but on the other hand
> adoption of systemd makes it easier for more upstreams to provide a reasonable
> service configuration that works on most systems (systemd configuration is a lot
> more portable than a sysv init script).
systemd is Yet Another init system to support, however you put it. And
if one wants to move out of the 1970's (as someone in this thread said
it earlier), and make use of systemd features where available, then it
can also result in non-trivial amount of extra code to carry in the code
base, on top of the service file.
Thus, upstream has to jump through a large heap of hoops to support
systemd properly (and if not going for proper systemd support, making
use of its new features, I see no point in writing a service file to
begin with).
Been there, done that, wasn't as easy as writing a service file.
--
|8]
Reply to: