Le 20/07/2014 16:11, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : > On Du, 20 iul 14, 14:40:27, Erwan David wrote: >> Add to this the fact it throws away years of habits with yet another >> language (yes the systemd unit files are nit shellscripts but they use a >> specific language mre complicated to understand thant shell scripts, > You must be confusing systemd unit files with something else: > > /lib/systemd/system/mpd.service: > > [Unit] > Description=Music Player Daemon > After=network.target sound.target > > [Service] > EnvironmentFile=/etc/default/mpd > ExecStart=/usr/bin/mpd --no-daemon $MPDCONF > > [Install] > WantedBy=multi-user.target > > This is the classic .ini format, very easy to read without having any > knowledge of shell scripting (or any other programing language). This is not the classic ini format 1) this format is not so classic (except for windows users, who do not use systemd) and I do not find a complete definition of it (eg. I did not find a definition of a section, it seems rather straightforward, but not completely, what if a definition is before the first section title, is there a way to do subsections, etc...) 2) You have a specific syntax, and a specific semantics (what does ExecStart, WantedBy, etc mean), that one must learn in order to simply read this. The namles of the sections are also meaningfull. All this defines a full fledge langaue, and I did not find any comprehensive donc of the language. Each doc refers to 43 or 4 other docs who refers back to all the others, making things quite difficult to read when you need a complete doc and not only a reference on points that you already partially know. >> without all literature one can find on shell scripting, and without a >> proper introduction and migration doc). It is not tested in real field > Do you mean something like the Release Notes? Work on them usually only > starts around the freeze (which will happen on 2014-11-05). No I mean a comprehensive doc to begin to understand how all this works, which statemets are compulsory, which are optional. A doc allowing migrating a system to systemd, allowing to replace everything that was done in the former system by the equivalent in the new one. > >> before being imposed to everybody, and it is still lacks features >> because it is thought only for the dresktop whose user is also the admin >> : no feature of cebtralised configuration for a parc, no advantage for >> servers, and returns are ugly (see people saying switching to systemd >> made the shutdown of their computer take several minutes, without any >> answer since nobody except the zealots who refuse to acknowledge the >> problems knows how to debug). >> >> systemd may have advantages but the change is much too fast, untested >> and will lead to big problems that many of us cannot afford. > > You're aware of course that Debian is one of the last big distros to > switch to systemd, with the notable exception of Ubuntu (who was using > upstart anyway). RHEL 7 does not use systemd as far as I know, only fedora (which would be sid, but not stable). > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Adoption > Yes, and I maintain that systemd is lacking feature (how to replace policy-rc.d is an example)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature