Re: FWIW: the modularization of systemd
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:43 PM, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 07/21/2014 04:24 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>
>> I decided to do a search on "systemd openbsd" to see what reaction
>> those friendly guys over there have, and I discovered the list of
>> projects the openbsd team offered to mentor in this year's GSOC.
>
> Link?
erm,
http://www.google.co.jp/search?q=openbsd+systemd
And I'm deliberately not just linking one or three items because
working through the links that search brings up is probably one of the
best ways to get a really sharp focus on just exactly what the
arguments over systemd are all about.
(Buried in there is a clue that is probably about as important as any:
Does openbsd use sysvinit or upstart or something else?)
If the vicissitudes of linkage lose the stuff about GSOC, just add it
to the search terms:
http://www.google.co.jp/search?q=openbsd+systemd+gsoc
>> Whether the student who decided to take on the modularization of
>> systemd, to break all the gratuitous dependencies, succeeds or not,
>> it's clear that this is another of the messes we've created here in
>> Linuxland that they are going to try to help us clean up.
>
> I seem to recall having read (I think here on this list) that it's been
> explicitly stated by systemd upstream that patches to make the "core
> components" not depend on one another will not be accepted.
The openbsd team has no qualms about forking and/or replacing stuff
that is contrary to good engineering principles. The modularization
they are working on is for their own use. It will still likely be a
very useful starting point for the debian devs, when they get the
ambition.
--
Joel Rees
Be careful where you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart.
Reply to: