Re: systemd - some more considerations
]] Bjørn Mork
> 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.
You're right that «how to resolve» is one part of the question.
It's not clear that execing a shell will fare you any better. Virtual
consoles and serial ports are optional kernel features too, after all.
> 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.
I'm not particularly interested in reiterating the entire discussion
here, I'm sure you'll find answers to why systemd requires the features
it does in #727708, git commit logs and mailing list archives.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: