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

Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian

Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> writes:

> On 05/08/12 00:04, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On May 07, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Means that services can be started (and stopped?) in response to events
>>> such as hardware discovery, incoming network connections, the status of
>>> other services, and so on.  (With dependencies still taken into
>>> account.)
>> I want to add another major event: the service exiting.
>> Being able to reliably monitor and automatically restart a failed 
>> service is critical.
> well, that's another 10 lines of shell worst case. We haven't agreed on
> how exactly to handle it and make it configurable and stuff (especially
> as tools like monit cover that niche better)

That's one of my issues with any init system that does not have this
built in: it needs to be written. And if it needs to be written, in

> So, whenever a CGroup becomes empty we trigger a script. That script now
> can do ... well ... everything.

...things will go terribly wrong, unless you have a strict control of
the init scripts. Which you won't, if packages ship their own, without a
central authority that tells them what can and what can't be done.

While I dislike certain aspects of systemd, and initially disliked that
it got rid of my trusty old shell-based initscripts, it is certainly
MUCH harder to screw things up when you're given far less power.

When the power is in the system itself, not given to individual scripts,
that in my opinion, is much safer in the long run.

>>> No, enough politeness.  We get that you like the way Gentoo does things
>>> (lots of options, you get to keep the pieces when they break), but some
>>> of us are trying to make Debian better than that.  We don't need more
>>> half-assed options, we need a solution.
>> AOL.
> Y'all really want to play that game?
> Ok, let me play too. I like games.

I thought we were talking about init systems. Don't bring other things
into the thread, as that will get even uglier than it already became,
and none of us will like it.

> But, hey, that's not my fight. I won't stop you from being silly, I just
> reserve the right to point and laugh at appropriate times.

So do we. We have as much right doing that as you do ;)


Reply to: