Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)
On 05/14/2013 04:51 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Yes of course, because a different init system will magically make your
> other disk bootable.
This is absolutely *NOT* what I said. Nothing in my message
compares this or that init system. I just replied that when you
have apache, it's easier to recover than with the PID1 crashing.
That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
> If you use tools like monit, you should be able to understand that such
> behavior should be standard for daemons shipped in Debian, and that
> sysadmins should not have to configure it themselves.
I do think that restarting crashed daemons is a nice feature,
yes. Though I believe OpenRC has this feature too (I have no
time to check for that fact right now, but I think I remember
reading it somewhere).
Also, I still believe that monit does its job well on the server
side, and that a generalized tool will not be adapted for it.
Only for servers, we should receive emails when there's
something that happens with a daemon, I don't want my
laptop to do that, even for Apache that I run there. So yes,
it should be configured by the admin!!!
> Such tools also have limitations that systemd and upstart do not have,
> such as having to use heuristics (sometimes convoluted ones) to detect
> when a service is ready.
I'm well aware that cgroups are important, yes.
Though no, I don't think systemd or upstart would be
good tools to do what monit does (unless they send
emails? I haven't seen such a feature in upstart and
systemd...)
> especially when you are unable to tell the difference between an init
> system and a bootloader.
What lead you to believe I can't make such difference? The
fact that I hacked a bit with OpenRC (and bloged about it),
and that I am mentoring a GSoC around it, should give
enough clue that I do know what an init system does.
BTW, I didn't intend to make you angry, or to give "lessons".
Please don't take it this way, I was only kidding you (eg: joking
*with* you, not trying to expose you in public).
Thomas
Reply to: