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

Re: piece of mind

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:12:56PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 16:03 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote: 
> >         This is the problem. The init system should not be providing "features"
> >         which other software might, post-boot and pre-shutdown, want to make use
> >         of. (AFAIK sysvinit never did, and most - possibly all? - of the other
> >         init-system candidates don't either.) Such features should be provided
> >         separately, independent of what may happen to be running as PID 1.
> > 
> > These features cannot exist separately. Quoting the systemd position
> > statement:
> > 
> > […] while it is true that a handful of trivial interfaces are not really
> > related to systemd (and could be split out if needed), most of these
> > features cannot be implemented without close integration to PID 1. It is
> > not possible to split the system cgroups arbitrator from the process
> > which starts services and sessions in cgroups. It is not possible to
> > ensure the relation of a log to a service if you do not have awareness
> > of how the service was launched. Et caetera. 
> How is uselessd solving this then?

It's not. It simply breaks this functionality, and a lot of other

(I just skimmed the useless.de.net page today, so I can give some more
examples, apart from the most obvious cgroups and integrated logging.

Based on the description:

- uselessd removes swap and mount units, simply calling mount and swapon directly.
This of course means that if the mount or swap is done by other means
the manager will not be aware of it. It probably also means that the
manager is not aware of alternative names for mount- and swap-points,
so if you say LABEL=... it will not know that /dev/dm-11 is the same thing.

- uselessd removes the integration with udev, so hardware activation is
probably gone

- uselessd simply calls fsck to do fsck, so checking of devices as they
appear and only if they are needed is also gone

... etc.)


Reply to: