Re: init system agnosticism [WAS: how to remove libsystemd0 from a live-running debian desktop system]
On 13.04.2017 11:27, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> For me, the first argument explain in the first mail is not this one.
> systemd is not portable on lots of system (hurd, kFreeBSD, ...),
This is just one of many arguments for not making applications
depending on it. (and they shouldn't depend on any other init system
either).
Regarding service status reporting, systemd folks indeed make a good
point. There is some demand for that, and they solved the problem for
their audience (unfortunately only for *their* audience), and moved
one to the next topic. For a prototype that's really fine, but not
for long term maintenance over dozens of different platforms.
Now stating, everybody should just implement their interfaces is just
like asking everybody to implement it in the windows way (NT came up
with it's entirely own service management system, which works quite
well, as long as you're confined within the windows world)
> systemd is not interested in making its code portable, nor to stabilize
> its interfaces so that other system init can easily implement them,
Well, that's their choice, and I respect that. It's just not mine.
I don't wanna be forced into their ways (as I wouldn't ever try to
force them into mine). So, I'm looking for a *generic solution* for the
actual problem, which that functions ins libsystemd aimed to solve,
so applications can just use them, w/o ever having to care which init
system might be installed (or if there even is one at all)
> lots of applications are now using libsystemd to get 'classical' information
> (status, ...) because they do not want to have to deal with several init
> system
Exactly. They're just looking for some API for that stuff, not caring
what it actually does under the hood. And systemd just happens to
provide one. From the application developer's pov systemd is filling
some gap, and they dont even wanna care about the consequences.
So, it's up to us, to provide a better solution - just telling how bad
systemd is, isn't just enought (from their perspective).
> and porters of platforms not supported by systemd have a really hard
> work to follow systemd developments and patch all things.
Exactly. For some arbitrary application developer (who usually doesn't
even know much about packaging, etc), it's hard to understand the
underlying problem - they just want something they can set their code
ontop (that's also the reason why all these strange proprietary
platforms can even exist). So, it's up to us, who know better, to give
them something they can work with, and that doesn't cause all the
trouble that Lennartware does.
> From your mail, you seems to deny this issue ("everybody can be pleased
> with systemd" and/or "this is not a general problem, just a problem
> from people that dislike systemd"). For what I see, it seems a problem
> also for people that like systemd but cannot use it on their plate-form
> (Hurd, ...)
Right, it's basicly the same old "shut up and go away" attitude.
Actually, many people already went away, and more will follow.
If it goes on that way, we'll end up w/ an own OS called systemd, which
is as far away from GNU/Linux as Android. Do you folks really want that
or did you just ran out of better ideas ?
> I'm persuaded that ignoring this issue will lead to an unmaintanable
> Debian distribution on platforms that do not support systemd in the
> middle/long term. But, perhaps, it is what the project wants.
That, in turn, would lead to Debian step by step defeating its own
original goals. I'm pretty sure that it won't take long for lots of
other things (beginning w/ other kernels) are dropped, just because
nobody is willing to keep it compatible w/ systemd.
> Enrico is proposing something else. I'm not sure if his proposal is
> good and doable (ie with enough support from various parties and
> manpower).
If we get out of the ideologic war (including the upstreams, too),
it wouldn't be such a big deal. A minimal implementation the proposed
library is quite simple and small. We'd just have to touch a bunch of
applications and rewrite a few lines there - and once it works and
included in a major distro, we have good chances for convincing
upstreams to take our patches in. And I'm sure, Devuan folks, which
had been driven out of Debian, will help here, too.
Yes, somebody needs to maintain the systemd-version/branch - but as the
library interface will be stable (it's scope is quite limited, so there
wont be much desire to add anything new). So, we at least have the
overhead of keeping up w/ systemd minimized and centralized in one
small lib. Maybe even someday systemd folks have some moment of insight
and take that part into their hands.
--mtx
Reply to: