Re: systemd .service file conversion
Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > You have the context wrong here. "considering systemd as a default init"
> > is too vague.
> Wikipedia says: A default, in computer science, refers to a setting or a value
> automatically assigned to a software application, computer program or device,
> outside of user intervention.
>
> What's vague about that?
It's the meaning of "considering" that was too vague, not the meaning of
"default". "Considering whether systemd is a suitable choice for default
init" vs "considering whether current Debian systemd packages are in a
state where they should be made the default", and so on.
> > Yes, there is integration work left. But that's really about the
> > question "is Debian ready to switch all user machines to systemd right
> > now using the current packages?", and I think nobody would answer "yes"
> > to that
> Good so that was exactly my point: let's have this thread when systemd is a
> production ready alternative.
Your error is that you mix up the status of systemd and the status of
systemd Debian integration. Systemd is a production ready system the
same way Apache is a production ready system. Systemd Debian integration
is not yet complete to that degree (not that it would be particularly
bad; people don't have to be insane to already use it on production
servers).
> > He was confusing what were likely integration issues with
> > what would be more fundamental issues with systemd itself (that would
> > make it less desirable to do the integration work and switch at all),
> > and I tried to explain the difference.
> I didn't say it has fundamental architectural flaws that can't be addressed, I
> said it should be care of the people who want it as default to take care of
> the flaws and make it a viable alternative before talking about it.
Most likely the problem you encountered was no flaw of any kind in
upstream systemd. It could have been a flaw Debian systemd setup, or a
flaw in another package entirely that just happened to trigger under
systemd. The latter kind aren't even particularly the responsibility of
people working on systemd support, even if they do need to be fixed for
systemd Debian integration.
So, to sum it up: Upstream systemd is ready for production and suitable
to be chosen as the default Debian init. Current Debian systemd packages
are not ready to be made the default for all users; nobody is claiming
they would be. Encountering some "shallow" problems is expected as more
users test them, and this is pretty much unavoidable while integration
work is still going on. You mixed up these two things (you also talked
about use in Fedora, which obviously says nothing about Debian
packaging). It's also obvious your time figures were completely made up
("a few years" to mature).
Reply to: