Re: `systemd --system` as a viable way out of the systemd debate?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: `systemd --system` as a viable way out of the systemd debate?
- From: Josselin Mouette <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:12:12 +0100
- Message-id: <1414491132.28333.66.camel@dsp0698014>
- In-reply-to: <CAD77+gSCfqTL_3Fqr39H0A0c=Qqo_SE=_74Kqp4kjJyzOpweRQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAD77+gSCfqTL_3Fqr39H0A0c=Qqo_SE=_74Kqp4kjJyzOpweRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Richard Hartmann <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Has anyone actually tested the viability of running systemd in non-PID-1 mode?
If yes, does this work and would it continue to work?
If yes, is there any hard commitment from upstream in this regard?
Assuming the answers to all of the above is yes, would this be a
viable option for the DDs who want to enforce loose coupling?
This is nice and all, but how to you tell such a “sub-init” which
services have been already started and which services it has to start
How do you enforce dependencies and ordering between services started by
PID 1 and by the sub-init?
How do you handle the different configurations for those who use systemd
as init and those who use systemd as sub-init?
I’m afraid the increased complexity of this proposal raises more
problems than it solves.
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :