Re: `systemd --system` as a viable way out of the systemd debate?
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:37:45PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org> writes:
> > > 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?
> >
> > I believe it's that logind relies on the cgroups setup that's done by
> > systemd, and that's what systemd-shim takes care of.
>
> Right. Specifically, logind uses the org.freedesktop.systemd1 DBus API
> to configure "slices" and "scopes", which act like runtime-creatable and
> runtime-configurable systemd units, including cgroup management. (Among
> many other APIs.)
To the best of my knowledge, neither cgroups nor d-bus require pid 1.
Is this after all the root cause, a rather complex API implemented in
pid 1 although it doesn't require any pid 1 capabilities?
If so, I can understand why people might feel it's not "the Unix way of
life."
Is this the "coupling" the proposal talks about?
Reply to: