Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts
Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 12:30:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> There seems to be a clear infrastructure gap for the non-systemd world
>> here that's crying out for some inetd-style program that implements the
>> equivalent of systemd socket activation and socket passing using the
>> same protocol, so that upstreams can not care whether the software is
>> started by systemd or by that inetd, and provides an easy-to-configure
>> way for Debian packages to indicate this should be used if systemd
>> isn't in play. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to
>> implement such a thing, but I don't think it already exists.
> https://bugs.debian.org/922353
> https://gitlab.com/dkg/socket-activate
> In the words of Douglas Adams, "there is another theory which states
> that this has already happened" :)
Great! So can we close the loop on the rest of the puzzle, which is how
to transparently use this facility in packaging for daemons that are
normally socket-activated with systemd on systems that don't use systemd?
That would help the sustainability of our approach here a lot, I think.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: