Re: init scripts [was: If Not Systemd, then What?]
Ludovic Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 08:54:16PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ludovic Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:34:47PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ludovic Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:56:20PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
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.
No one commented because that's false.
I also guess that you will use anyone response to later justify
"see, it try to force its way by forcing people to
integrate with systemd". Either way, that's gonna be used
as a way to criticize.
False, how?
the whole part that you erased showed there is a few upstreams
that care about integration with systemd at the source code level.
Ie, using features of systemd ( journald, socket activation ),
rather than just providing a .service file.
No... my point is that NONE of the major upstream projects that I
use on our servers, bother to produce systemd service files, but all
of them produce sysvinit files.
so you select only the upstream you want, on the point you
want. And erase when someone point the problem.
No... I selected the upstreams that I run on our servers, and then since
a few of them are less common, I added the more common equivalents:
- I run postfix, added sendmail
- I run sympa, added mailman
- I run mysql, added mariadb and postgres
And I'll note that those are precisely some of the most used, most
mature packages, that you'll find on practically every production
server in the world (well, ok, I left out sendmail, but I just
checked, and guess what, no systemd service file in upstream).
What do they know?
Show us where Debian is using the file shipped by upstream.
ummm... as the start for packaging
and I expect a lot of people install from upstream source when packaged
versions get stale (as they do, for example, with sympa) - I know I do
Then, tell me, is Debian wrong to not use them, or
are the script shipped upstream deficient ?
In fact, you show "they are shipping initscript",
but tell me, how many of them are proper initscript,
following lsb ?
http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.1/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html
You know, I really don't care. They work, with mature sysvinit init
systems.
As you didn't gave any link to source code,
you place extra burden on the one trying to be critics about
your argument. Maybe that's what you want, maybe not.
Tough. Particularly in that I don't really care about arguing with
anyone who really has his mind made up.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Reply to: