Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Erwan David <email@example.com> wrote:
> Le 20/07/2014 16:11, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
>> On Du, 20 iul 14, 14:40:27, Erwan David wrote:
>>> Add to this the fact it throws away years of habits with yet another
>>> language (yes the systemd unit files are nit shellscripts but they use a
>>> specific language mre complicated to understand thant shell scripts,
>> You must be confusing systemd unit files with something else:
>> Description=Music Player Daemon
>> After=network.target sound.target
>> ExecStart=/usr/bin/mpd --no-daemon $MPDCONF
>> This is the classic .ini format, very easy to read without having any
>> knowledge of shell scripting (or any other programing language).
> This is not the classic ini format
> 1) this format is not so classic (except for windows users, who do not
> use systemd) and I do not find a complete definition of it (eg. I did
> not find a definition of a section, it seems rather straightforward, but
> not completely, what if a definition is before the first section title,
> is there a way to do subsections, etc...)
It is a standard ini file format, which is:
It's used, for example, by postfix (without "[Section]") so it's not
just a Windows format.
> 2) You have a specific syntax, and a specific semantics (what does
> ExecStart, WantedBy, etc mean), that one must learn in order to simply
> read this. The namles of the sections are also meaningfull. All this
> defines a full fledge langaue, and I did not find any comprehensive donc
> of the language. Each doc refers to 43 or 4 other docs who refers back
> to all the others, making things quite difficult to read when you need a
> complete doc and not only a reference on points that you already
> partially know.
You have to learn the syntax of any program in order to use it.
The LSB headers of a sysvinit script have to be learned.
For documentation of the keys, try harder:
man 7 systemd.directives
RHEL 7 has just been released with systemd so there's probably extra
documentation on redhat.com.
>>> systemd may have advantages but the change is much too fast, untested
>>> and will lead to big problems that many of us cannot afford.
>> You're aware of course that Debian is one of the last big distros to
>> switch to systemd, with the notable exception of Ubuntu (who was using
>> upstart anyway).
> RHEL 7 does not use systemd as far as I know, only fedora (which would
> be sid, but not stable).
Please do some homework before making such a statement about RHEL 7!