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

Re: On init in *Debian*

]] Samuel Thibault 

> Andrey Rahmatullin, le Mon 02 Apr 2012 19:21:59 +0600, a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:14:25PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> > > > And the third advantage of it, is that upstream people is starting to ship
> > > > systemd unit files.
> > > It is not advantage. it is crap. I believe no one can write and support
> > > init/systemd/whatsoever scripts sutable for many distributions and their
> > > versions.
> > That's right, nobody can write initscripts for all distros because they
> > are incompatible. Isn't this problem solved by systemd?
> No, it was mentioned previously that systemd does not aim at being a
> (linux distro) standard.

Depending on what you mean by «being a (linux distro) standard», I think
you're misunderstanding what at least I meant, and quite possibly what
Russ Allbery meant too.  (Russ, please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't
want to put words in your mouth.)

Russ Allbery wrote:
  The maintenance of systemd is actually quite the opposite of a
  standard. It's focused on being clean, supportable, and fully
  integrated with Linux capabilities, *not* to solving everyone's use
  case, even to the detriment of being universal.

This is about how systemd is maintained, not whether it is (or can be) a
standard tool.  systemd is not maintained by a standards committee.
It's not driven by people sitting down, discussing the problem it's
trying to solve, thinking about all the edge cases and then writing a
spec and documentation for what one has thought about.

systemd is not written to be interoperable with other init
implementations or a tool which you can easily switch to and away from
it. (You can do that if you don't use most of systemd's features, but if
you commit to using systemd units, there's no other init system that
currently understands them, for instance.)

This does not mean systemd can't be a standard tool, it just means it's
by itself not a standard in the sense the the FHS, the LSB or the XDG
specs are standards.  From talking with upstream, it's quite obvious
that they want systemd to be the standard init on Linux systems.

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: