Re: init scripts [was: If Not Systemd, then What?]

[Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>]

> Given all the talk about not being able to influence upstream, it 
> occurred to me to actually take a look at which of the major 
> applications I rely on actually come with native systemd service 
> scripts. I just went through the documentation, and in some cases, the 
> source trees, for the following:
> bind9
> apache
> sympa
> mailman
> mysql
> mariadb
> postgres
> postfix
> spamassassin
> amavisd
> clamav
>
> Most come with sysvinit scripts, several come with their own startup 
> scripts (e.g., apachectl) that get dropped into rc.local. Not a one 
> comes with a native systemd service file (even though, when you search 
> through the mysql documentation it tells you that oracle linux has 
> switched to systemd).
> So... with systemd, one has to:
> - rely on packagers to generate systemd service files, and/or,
> - rely on systemd's support for sysvinit scripts, which
>
> In the later case, one just has to read:
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatibilities/
> to get very, very scared
>
> Among the implications of this, the old standby of installing software 
> from upstream (bypassing packaging), has just gotten a lot riskier. 

Interesting, since I posted this, a bunch of people have jumped on my 
comment that relying on packagers and systemd to support sysvinit 
scripts seems increasingly risky, but...

Not a single person has commented on the observation that upstream 
developers, at least of core server applications, are thoroughly 
ignoring systemd.  So tell me again about all the great features that 
are in such demand, that systemd is a solution for?  Where's the 
demand?  Maybe upstream knows something that seems to elude systemd 
proponents?

Miles Fidelman





--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra