Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:45:21
Message-Id: CADPrc80QVLCyhBsz=PMpupSfUXG_QfUCJzXS=HtizgV2wS-ihg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC by Luca Barbato
1 On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
2 [snip]
3 > Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than
4 > libc is stupid and dangerous.
5
6 No, it's not. You can (and should) depend on whatever libraries helps
7 to achieve the desired goals. If one of the libraries has a bug, guess
8 what? It should be fixed. And then you repeat until all the used
9 libraries are as stable as libc (or more, if possible), and then the
10 statement that "having your first process require anything more than
11 libc is stupid and dangerous" makes no sense at all.
12
13 (As a side note, I would like to see the bugrate of libpthread,
14 libudev, libpam, libaudit, libcap, libdbus, etc. I'm pretty sure the
15 latest versions are pretty much rock solid).
16
17 That's in part what I like the approach taken by systemd (and
18 PulseAudio, by the way); it wants to be a proper solution, and if in
19 using something else they detect a bug, they push to get the bug fixed
20 in the external library (or the kernel sometimes). They don't
21 "workaround" real problems. It's the only way to guarantee that the
22 *whole* stack (not only libc, or the kernel) actually works as it
23 should.
24
25 So yes, PID 1 should use whatever libraries it makes sense to use, and
26 if there are bugs in them *they should get fixed*. Otherwise lets
27 program everything in assembler, because maybe gcc has a bug
28 somewhere.
29
30 > Once that concept gets accepted then we could discuss about why
31 > reinventing shellscript may not be that sound and other less glaring,
32 > horrid and appalling design choices.
33
34 The didn't reinvent shellscript; they replaced it with unit files.
35 That's the best design choice about systemd, IMHO: the unit files say
36 *what* a service should do, not *how*. And besides, you can still use
37 shellscript if your daemon is so fucked up that a regular unit file
38 doesn't cover your case. You should fix your daemon, really; but the
39 option to use shellscript is still there.
40
41 > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation
42 > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio
43 > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it.
44
45 Really? I'm subscribed to the systemd ML, and the author accept all
46 kind of contributions. If they don't agree with one in particular they
47 explain why and the discuss a compromise if necessary. Doing the
48 following in my git clone of the project:
49
50 git log --format='%aN' | sort -u | wc
51
52 shows a total of 337 contributors to systemd. So I really believe that
53 you are talking nonsense in this particular point.
54
55 > Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork
56 > it", then "do not keep your fork you are wasting time" once somebody
57 > starts forking and/or working for an alternative.
58
59 By all means, fork it. Just allow Gentoo users to use udev/systemd as
60 upstream intended. And while we are at it, don't put OpenRC in the
61 dependency list of baselayout, otherwise it gets pulled in (and
62 sysvinit with it) for all systemd users even if we don't use it at
63 all. I maintain a really small overlay to use systemd exclusively in
64 Gentoo, so I don't need to install OpenRC and sysvinit:
65
66 https://github.com/canek-pelaez/gentoo-systemd-only/
67 http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/gentoo-systemd-only/
68
69 Regards.
70 --
71 Canek Peláez Valdés
72 Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
73 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org>