Re: systemd-fsck?
On Tuesday 13 May 2014 11:06:10 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de> writes:
> > Yes, there were issues with e.g. grub1 to grub2, but do you honestly
> > think that sysadmins in a medium-sized company will cope with these?
> >
> > • no /etc/init.d/$foo (to tabcomplete, no less!) any more
>
> I've been telling people to stop using this for years. You should stop
> using this too, regardless of what init system you're using, since it
> doesn't sanitize environment variables. You leak all kinds of crap from
> your personal shell environment into the daemon environment that can cause
> mysterious and difficult-to-debug problems.
>
> service foo <action> works across Linux distributions, with or without
> systemd, and does the right thing.
The big shame with service is that tab completion does not work properly.
If I use /etc/init.d/ then tab tells me what is there and spells it right.
David
>
> > • journal
>
> With the default systemd configuration on Debian, you won't ever know this
> exists unless you use one of the features that takes advantage of it.
> There's literally nothing to adjust to, so yes, of course they'll cope.
>
> > • totally different ways to handle services
>
> In that way in which what you're doing now continues to work and you can
> use the new stuff when you feel like it.
>
> > • totally different ways to rescue a system that does not boot
> >
> > cleanly any more
>
> In that way in which booting from the rescue entry in Grub continues to
> work just the way that it does right now.
>
> > • the init system breaking init scripts hand-written by people
> >
> > who don’t really know what they’re doing, have not even heard
> > of LSB, much less “units”
>
> This was indeed a more difficult transition... which we already did years
> ago when we switched to dependency-based boot. Which did cause people a
> fair bit of trouble. But it's now been handled, and systemd is unlikely
> to make any remaining issues any worse.
>
> > I’m *positive* they won’t.
>
> Good thing most of the problems you're worried about are figments of your
> imagination, then, huh?
Reply to: