Re: `systemd --system` as a viable way out of the systemd debate?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:58:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > On 28 October 2014 12:12, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30:50AM +0100, Richard Hartmann 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?
> > >
> > > 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
> > > itself?
> >
> > The point of a sub-init would be to start one specific service.
> > Basically the idea would be that in /etc/init.d/gdm3 init script,
> > instead of starting the gdm daemon, one would start systemd with a
> > very special set of configurations (possibly even separate and
> > different from what one would use in a normal, systemd-based startup
> > of gdm). And on stopping of that service one would stop that whole
> > sub-init.
>
> In a sub-init configuration, systemd itself would start either from
> inittab or from a relatively early init script. Packages and services
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 10:41:54PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Real problems? Apart from a couple of more reasonable people, I have
> yet to see systemd criticism in factual terms, rather than entirely
> made-up claims or vague accusations of destroying the Unix way of
> life.
What is the reason that one can't easily run logind, or even better a
systemd process running logind and possibly other services, under the
runsv program from the runit init scheme, or through /etc/inittab?
Thanks.
Reply to: