Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...
Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:24:28 -0400,
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> a écrit :
> Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:56:30 -0400,
> > Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> a écrit :
> >
> >> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>> Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >>>> Martin Read wrote:
> >>>>> On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
> >>>>>> It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do
> >>>>>> anything unless you do have the software actually running which
> >>>>>> the library makes useable --- at least that's what was said.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, not all cases are the same, yet in this case, the
> >>>>>> library shouldn't be installed unless the software it is for is
> >>>>>> installed.
> >>>>> Gentoo and Funtoo are ----> over there, just like they were
> >>>>> months ago when you first started complaining about systemd on
> >>>>> debian-user.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you move over to using them instead of Debian, you'll
> >>>>> probably be happier (because you'll have more control over what
> >>>>> software runs on your systems and how it's configured) and the
> >>>>> Debian maintainers will probably be happier (because there will
> >>>>> be one fewer person haranguing them for refusing to embrace
> >>>>> combinatorial explosion).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Everyone wins.
> >>>> Right. This sounds more and more like "we're going to rewrite
> >>>> the rules, and if you don't like it, we're taking our ball and
> >>>> going home."
> >>> Various people have tried to explain how a binary distribution
> >>> like Debian works (build packages with all options included by
> >>> defauls) and how shared libraries work on Linux (all the
> >>> libraries need to be there to satisfy symbol resolution at run
> >>> time, even if none of the code is ever used). When those
> >>> explanations fell on deaf ears, people have resorted to analogy.
> >>> That was clearly a waste of time too.
> >>>
> >>> These are standard "rules" that have existed for many years, there
> >>> is no rewriting going on at all. Instead, it seems there are
> >>> people who won't, or don't want to, understand explanations when
> >>> given. For people who claim to have technical backgrounds, that's
> >>> a surprising (and very frustrating) problem.
> >>>
> >> Yeah... the Unix way... which systemd and it's pieces violate in so
> >> many ways.
> > Surprisingly 10th of different executables talking to each other
> > using a common IPC mechanism (dbus here) seems to be really "unixy"
> > to me...
> >
> >
>
> First off, we're talking about the hairball that is systemd, not the
> one specific piece of the ecosystem that is DBUS.
I was talking about systemd.
> Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" - we're talking about
> a well developed philosophy of designing things that dates back to
> Ken Thompson, et. al (c.f., "The UNIX Programming Environment,"or
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy).
The systemd umbrella project is made of 10+ different executables that
have all a specific scope (systemd PID1 used to manage the life cycles
of the daemons, systemd-logind manage the user sessions,
systemd-journald a logging system,...) and that are all communicating
using well defined, stable and documented dbus interfaces that allow
one to reimplement the functionalities as long as it exposes the same
interfaces (ie. this is what systemd-shim is doing).
Reply to: