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

Re: upstart: please update to latest upstream version

On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 12:57 +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi,
> On 24.02.2012 12:10, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > There is another option here. We make a project-wide decision of
> > which init system to use for Linux (systemd or upstart). And we
> > write a compatibility layer for non-Linux systems, that generates
> > sysvinit-compatible scripts based on systemd services or upstart
> > jobs.
> I was an advocate of this idea during the last "systemd or not", well
> let's call it "discussion" and I still think, that's a fair
> compromise. Since systemd uses descriptive init jobs it is somewhat
> feasible to automatically generate some shell based sysvinit scripts
> out of them.
> That would make us all happy, as I am one of these persons who wants
> both, kFreeBSD and systemd on Linux.
> However, I was thinking of a possible implementation scenario back
> then and I found some complicated design decision to solve before
> realizing this idea. It is more complicated than it seems. There are
> some features in systemd like socket or bus invocation and most
> important cgroups which make it non trivial to write a thin legacy
> wrapper for non-Linux kernels.

It might be that in some cases an init script would be required whereas
in most cases automatic conversion would work.

It might be possible to use jails on kFreeBSD, but I'm not sure whether
they can be used for grouping only (what systemd does by default).
There is also a bug that can cause jails to hang around
<http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/89528> though it
doesn't sound like the *processes* stay around.

If the automatic conversion can be done at package build time, e.g. by
debhelper, then it should be easy for developers to know when they need
to include an init script.

> Effectively we would end up to basically fork systemd or carry very
> heavy patches in systemd. Not sure if that sounds desirable in the
> long term, as I do not think upstream is interested to merge any of
> these hacks.

No, Debian developers generally do not have the time to maintain such a
fork of an active upstream.


Ben Hutchings
If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: