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

Re: Re: piece of mind

The Wanderer:
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.

Matthias Urlichs:
Please explain why it should  *not* provide these "features". Why
> should every daemon (or its startup script) re-implement the same
> code to put itself in the background, change UIDs, resource-limit
> and security-enhance (private /tmp) itself, when the same thing can
> be implemented once, so that I as a sysadmin (or my puppet script)
> don't have to learn ten separate ways of configuring that?

M. Wanderer was talking about process #1 in his message, M. Urlichs, which xe made synonymous with "the init system". Your changing that to be the systemd package, in order to then knock that argument down, is a strawman. You know, or at least should know, as well as I that one can centralize the code to do all of those things, and abstract them out of daemons into a service manager, without that service manager being process #1. daemontools actually began (version 0.51 dates from July 1997) as exactly a toolset to do this, with things like "svscan" and "svscanboot" coming a couple of years later. In the intervening years we have seen daemontools-encore, freedt, s6, perp, runit, and nosh; all of which can do this. Several of them even come documented with instructions on how to run them under various process #1 programs. daemontools, dating from when it did, had instructions for running under System V init and BSD init. So does perp. runit has a whole load of instructions at http://smarden.org/runit/useinit.html . s6 has a whole load of instructions at http://skarnet.org/software/s6/s6-svscan-not-1.html . The dichotomy that you present as your challenge, that the choice is between having process #1 do all of this or having each individual daemon program do all of this, is a fallacious one, disproven by the existence of toolsets that allow for avoiding both, for some 17 years now.

Reply to: