Re: systemd - some more considerations

[Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no>]

Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:
> ]] Norbert Preining 
>
>> > systemd needs cgroups, that's pretty well established.  Arguably, it
>> > should die with a clearer message.
>> 
>> No, NO  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>> 
>> *IT*SHOULD*NOT*DIE*!!! It is in PID 1. Please digest that.
>
> Am I understanding you correctly that you don't think there are any
> situations where compiling out features from the kernel can lead to pid1
> not working would be acceptable?

The main problem is how you resolve the "not working".  Dying will never
a sane way to give up from pid 1.  Try exec'ing something else instead,
like a shell or a stripped down init not needing all those optional
kernel fatures.

And wrt the question about required kernel feaures: Why should the
systemd pid1 require more features than other init systems?  I have been
told before when complaining about putting additional complexity into
pid1 that this isn't true - that systemd really doesn't add dependencies
to pid1 compared to alternative init systems.  This doesn't seem to be
completely true.


Bjørn