1 |
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Austin English wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Talking with Whubbs about it, I found that our service script only |
5 |
>> supports OpenRC, via rc-service. I looked around, and from what I |
6 |
>> can tell, most distros ship a service tool for all supported init |
7 |
>> systems. I.e., Debian/Ubuntu: supports sysvinit and systemd via |
8 |
>> init-system-helpers CentOS/Fedora: provides support for systemd via |
9 |
>> initscripts OpenSUSE: has a working service binary for systemd |
10 |
>> (according to #suse) |
11 |
> |
12 |
> There is "eselect rc" which could be easily extended to support |
13 |
> systemd. Patches are welcome. :) |
14 |
> |
15 |
|
16 |
++ |
17 |
|
18 |
Honestly, I could see the argument for having a generic "service" |
19 |
command because that is what everybody else does, but there is little |
20 |
point in arguing about the name of the file when nobody has bothered |
21 |
to write it yet. |
22 |
|
23 |
If somebody writes such a tool and it proves useful, we can always |
24 |
have the discussion about refactoring. |
25 |
|
26 |
To minimize list replies I'll tackle one of Duncan's points - he was |
27 |
debating whether you really need this vs just using systemctl. The |
28 |
obvious use case is scripts that are intended to support multiple init |
29 |
systems - it makes far more sense to put the logic to figure out which |
30 |
one to run in one place than many. If the runit users want to add |
31 |
their own logic they could. IMO it would be potentially useful, even |
32 |
if you and I don't personally have much use for it. |
33 |
|
34 |
That said, the sorts of people most likely to benefit probably don't |
35 |
use Gentoo in the first place. |
36 |
|
37 |
In any case, arguing over whether it is useful is putting the cart |
38 |
before the horse. It doesn't matter if it is useful if nobody bothers |
39 |
to build it. If nobody has that much of an itch to scratch then how |
40 |
useful could it be? |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Rich |