Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ]

[Michael Mol]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:40:27 -0400
> "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 01:18:24AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
>>
>> > I'm not sure where you're going with this. We're discussing an init
>> > system and good, simple ways to start services. App maintainers are
>> > going to continue to do whatever they feel they ought to do, some
>> > might write the systemd files, some might not - that is what already
>> > happens. Someone has to write it and what goes in it depends on what
>> > the app code does, not the other way round.
>>
>>   The point I'm making is that if the initialization is moved into the
>> binary, then the binary will have to be patched/modified/whatever.
>> There's already somebody with a systemd overlay.  Assuming that the
>> initialization code gets shoved into the binary, how does it
>> simultaneously support openrc/systemd/linux/bsd/Sun/HPUX/etc/etc?  The
>> only realistic answer I see is leaving the init code to the distro
>> maintainer.  We don't expect the upstream for sshd or any other
>> software to write Gentoo-specific stuff like ebuilds.  Whey should
>> they be expected to write Gentoo-specific initscripts?
>
> Fair enough
>
>> > As for the last question, I really have no idea where you're taking
>> > this. I don't know the answer, I've never been a maintainer in that
>> > position. Being the arrogant shit that I am, I reckon I would
>> > probably tell the user to piss off and I don't support hobby crap.
>> > But hey, that's just what I think I might say while sitting here on
>> > my couch.
>>
>>   So you're saying you wouldn't have supported...
>
> No, you're saying that you believe that you think I would say that
> based on some extrapolation of I don't know what.
>
> I said no such thing.
> I said that I don't know what I would do
>
> Let's not get too carried away with Linus's little project being
> representative of anything. It's a fluke. There are 100s of other hobby
> systems that went nowhere.

I said this before, but it sounds useful to try to reiterate:

* It's probable that service-specific files should not be included in
the init system package.
* Service-specific init files should probably be part of the
distro-localized version of a service-providing package.

This doesn't mean modifying binaries, this is part of bootstrapping a
service's environment. Call it "deferred installation stages", if you
like; things which need to be done for the service to be configured
and properly operate.



-- 
:wq