Re: Making daemons compatible with systemd [was: Minimal init]

[Fernando Lemos <fernandotcl@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr> 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
often misused.