Re: init scripts [was: If Not Systemd, then What?]
On 18/11/14 15:06, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Please don't top post - it's not hard to move the mouse.
>
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 18/11/14 12:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> <snipped> I left out sendmail, but I just checked, and guess
>>> what, no systemd service file in upstream).
>> xy?
> Ummm.... those are NOT systemd scripts shipped by the upstream
> sendmail developers.
Your point was noted - hence the "xy?" comment.
However - I don't 'believe' it's a relevant point.
A. Mail servers don't care about init systems. Quite the reverse.
B. systemd's ain't systemd's (e.g. what constitutes "systemd" varies
according to release and distro). (i.e. ~/.bashrc from debian isn't
identical to upstreams).
To ensure I wasn't falling into the trap of confirmation bias - before
checking upstream for init support I'd be asking myself if it was
necessary (cart before horse?).
e.g. Why *should* sendmail ship *a* systemd .session file? After all
sendmail developers have to support a wide range of systems and
apportion resources according to their definition of needs.
1. Compared to configuring sendmail correctly it's trivial to create one
to suit the usecase.
2. Like sendmail itself there is no "one-size-all" session/timer
configuration.
3. If the user installs from a distro repostitory they get a "default"
.session file to match the distro. (If the distro is going to do the
work why should upstream do it?)
> They ship sysvinit scripts, period. Which is
> my point.
I suspect the logic you base the point upon is flawed.
> Major upstream application developers do not seem to be
> jumping on systemd.
More important than trying to find evidence of a negative 'might' be
determining whether there is a need. If there is none[*1] then the
absence of proof has little value.
[*1]you mention sendmail, which is widely deployed on distros that use
systemd *despite* upstream not distributing systemd "support" - because
upstream "support" for systemd is redundant. Do you have something less
fuzzy than "major upstream application developers"?? It's puzzling as
this is Debian and most of us use the *Debian packaged* version of
upstream so the relevance is difficult to dissern.
> If anything, what I'm seeing are "oh sh&t, I
> guess we should develop systemd service units at some point."
Can you point to some upstream references for this please?
(my Google-fu fails me).
>
> Miles Fidelman
>>
>> Did you try Google?
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=systemd+%2B%22sendmail.service%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&&channel=sb
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What do they know?
I'm sorry, I can't answer empty rhetoric questions.
Was that intentional?
Could you rephrase the question so it makes sense please?
>>>
>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>
>>>
>> e.g. sendmail.service:- [Unit] Description=Sendmail Mail Transport
>> Agent After=syslog.target network.target [Service]
>> Environment=QUEUE=1h EnvironmentFile=/etc/sysconfig/sendmail
>> Type=forking ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sendmail -bd -q $QUEUE
>> $SENDMAIL_OPTARG [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target
>>
>>
>> Useful Refs:-
>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/sendmail#Start_on_boot
>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd/Timers
>> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-2.html
>> https://www.lisenet.com/2014/create-a-systemd-service-to-send-automatic-emails-when-arch-linux-restarts/
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>
Kind regards
--
"Turns out you can't back a winner in the Gish Gallop" ~ disappointed punter
Reply to: