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

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:49:19AM +0900, heroxbd wrote:
> Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> writes:
> > By far the more severe issue is socket activation, because it removes
> > the need to spell out service dependencies. We cannot infer these
> > dependencies later on. Instead such a wrapper must implement socket
> > activation in order to work correctly. This is the non-trivial problem.
> Interesting point. I am wondering if it is feasible to use x/inetd for
> the socket activation.
Yes, that's the major selling point of inetd, but only for a single
socket services (so no port 80 and port 443 for single apache
process), only for AF_INET or unix (no fifos, no netlink sockets, and
none of the other kinds supported by systemd), only for standard
sizes, ...). And of course inetd doesn't do any process
supervision. In short, yes, but really no.

they are not broken. they are refucktored
                           -- alxchk

Reply to: