Re: administration of initscripts
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:31:25AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:51:02PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > > And that's a Linux problem where some BSDs put lots of effort into
> > > compliance only to have the standard changed to suit linux due to
> > > pressure.
> > Which standard, POSIX?
I've read that page and I can't see an example of POSIX being changed
to suit Linux. I see mention of strlcpy, which Linux has not adopted,
but is not POSIX; I see a claim that the next version of POSIX would
be riddled with GNU, but that hasn't happened. What did I miss?
> That's a very narrow view of what may be delivered.
Please widen my horizons, then. I typed up that scenario to try and
understand what you are talking about. I still don't understand.
> > I'd like to see an answer to the question another poster put to you
> > regarding this: which part of the POSIX specification specifically
> > relates to init systems?
> That's a loaded disengenuous question.
Why? You said "an init which also differes between systems but can be
POSIC compliant". I just want to know what that means. How does POSIX
relate to init systems?
> A system running systemd can not be POSIX compliant ever.
> How can it not be relevant as pid1, if programs come to depend on
> systemd then you would have to fork more and more code and not
> necessarily just for embedded systems wanting leaner code but possibly
> for POSIX compliance.
A program depending on systemd? How many programs need to depend on any
specific init implementation? A very small number surely. Why can't a
program requiring POSIX work on a systemd system? Why can't a system
running systemd be POSIX compliant? Or is that not what you are saying?
> I was pointing out that you were twisting things. launchd being POSIX
> compliant has no bearing on the discussion. Your point was pointless.
I didn't bring up launchd… I'm sorry if you think I'm twisting things
because that is not my intention (and I'm in the dark as to what I am
> > If you were a faithful follower of Kernighan UNIX philosophy, you
> > wouldn't touch those nasty BSDs with a bargepole.
> The book talks about the east and west as you call them
> not as one being better
Also great: they both have their merits, and Linux is if anything a
mongrel of philosophies.
> but both being so depending on the task at hand because the
> world isn't black and white.
Indeed: yet your world view leaves no room for systemd?
> What I was saying was that systemd goes against some of the good principles
> set forward in that book.
No doubt: not least the idea of small, discrete programs each doing