1 |
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:27:31PM -0500, Austin English wrote: |
2 |
> (Note: serious discussion, please take systemd trolling elsewhere). |
3 |
> |
4 |
> While having the pleasure of working with some proprietary software |
5 |
> recently, I was asked to run `service foo restart`, and was surprised to |
6 |
> see: |
7 |
> foobar ~ # service foo restart |
8 |
> * service: service `foo' does not exist |
9 |
|
10 |
You saw this because "service" is really rc-service. At some point in |
11 |
the past, I was asked to add the "service" command to OpenRC, and all |
12 |
it is is a synonym for rc-service. |
13 |
|
14 |
> Since `systemctl restart foo` works, I had a workaround anyway. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Talking with Whubbs about it, I found that our service script only |
17 |
> supports OpenRC, via rc-service. I looked around, and from what I can |
18 |
> tell, most distros ship a service tool for all supported init systems. I.e., |
19 |
> Debian/Ubuntu: supports sysvinit and systemd via init-system-helpers |
20 |
> CentOS/Fedora: provides support for systemd via initscripts |
21 |
> OpenSUSE: has a working service binary for systemd (according to #suse) |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I'd like to propose moving `service` out of OpenRC and into a separate |
24 |
> package that OpenRC and systemd can both use. It's very possible that we |
25 |
> could simply package/use another distro's scripts (I haven't evaluated |
26 |
> that though). |
27 |
|
28 |
I would support this. "service" should be a command, separate from any |
29 |
service manager, that can be a wrapper for multiple service managers. |
30 |
|
31 |
It isn't something that the service managers have to care about, it |
32 |
would just be a convenience tool for users. |
33 |
|
34 |
I can start setting up for this as soon as OpenRC 0.33 by removing the |
35 |
service binary from OpenRC. |
36 |
|
37 |
Thanks, |
38 |
|
39 |
William |