1 |
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Steven J. Long |
2 |
<slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 12:04:00PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: |
4 |
>> PLEASE DO NOT START A FLAME WAR AND READ ON FIRST. |
5 |
>> THIS IS NOT A POST AGAINST OPENRC. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> With the release of Sabayon 13.04 [1] and thanks to the efforts I put |
8 |
>> into the systemd-love overlay [2], systemd has become much more |
9 |
>> accessible and easy to migrate to/from openrc. Both are able to |
10 |
>> happily coexist and logind/consolekit detection is now done at |
11 |
>> runtime. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> That's great: well done :-) |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Can I just check: what about people not using consolekit nor logind? |
16 |
|
17 |
This has nothing to do with it. If you don't want consolekit nor |
18 |
logind just USE="-consolekit -systemd". |
19 |
It looks like you haven't clear what I'm writing about, though. |
20 |
|
21 |
> |
22 |
>> It is sad to say that the "territoriality" in base-system (and |
23 |
>> toolchain) is not allowing any kind of progress [3] [4]. This is |
24 |
>> nothing new, by the way. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> I don't think you help yourself by making that kind of remark: when I read |
27 |
> those bugs I see some valid concerns being raised, which you just ignore. |
28 |
> For instance, wrt "nonsensical blockers" I too would like to know some |
29 |
> examples, as was queried in comment 27 [3]. In fact it was the first thing |
30 |
> that came to mind when reading your post, as I thought where possible things |
31 |
> were just installed for systemd (such as unit files) even when the user |
32 |
> is not using it. |
33 |
|
34 |
Have you ever tried to fully migrate to systemd from openrc? Clearly not. |
35 |
|
36 |
> |
37 |
> > There are several components that need patching in order to work as |
38 |
>> expected with systemd: |
39 |
>> - polkit needs a patch that enables runtime detection of logind/consolekit |
40 |
>> - pambase needs to drop USE=systemd and always enable the optional |
41 |
>> module pam_systemd.so |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Again, what about people not using consolekit, nor logind, with no intention |
44 |
> of ever installing systemd? I've got nothing against this so long as it |
45 |
> is guaranteed not to break my pam setup. As-is I feel *very* wary of a change |
46 |
> that unconditionally requires a 'pam_systemd.so'. Please note I am not hostile |
47 |
> to your aims: I am merely seeking reassurance. |
48 |
|
49 |
Do you know how pam works? And did you understand the meaning of my |
50 |
words? Do you know what optional means in this context? |
51 |
|
52 |
> |
53 |
>> - genkernel needs to migrate to *udev (or as I did, provide a --udev |
54 |
>> genkernel option), mdev is unable to properly activate LVM volumes and |
55 |
>> LVM is actually working by miracle with openrc. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> Why is that such a "miracle"? openrc has worked with lvm since the beginning |
58 |
> afair, and is both clean, portable C, and modular. |
59 |
|
60 |
Do you know how LVM and udev and systemd interact wrt volumes activation? |
61 |
|
62 |
> |
63 |
>> Alternatively, we should migrate to dracut. |
64 |
>> - networkmanager need not to install/remove files depending on |
65 |
>> USE=systemd but rather detect systemd at runtime, which is a 3 lines |
66 |
>> script. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Sounds reasonable; since I don't use it, that can't affect me in any case. |
69 |
|
70 |
My goal wrt openrc is to keep the current level of support and just |
71 |
make systemd users' life easier. |
72 |
|
73 |
> |
74 |
>> - openrc-settingsd needs to support eselect-settingsd, which makes |
75 |
>> possible to switch the settingsd implementation at runtime, between |
76 |
>> openrc and systemd. This also removes the silly conflict between |
77 |
>> openrc-settingsd and systemd friends. |
78 |
>> - genkernel should at least support plymouth (work in progress my side) |
79 |
>> - other ~490 systemd units are missing at this time and writing them |
80 |
>> could also be a great GSoC project (don't look at me, I'm busy |
81 |
>> enough). |
82 |
>> |
83 |
>> All this would come with no cost for the current openrc state |
84 |
>> (actually, my initramfs speed improvements patches in genkernel.git |
85 |
>> also benefit openrc). |
86 |
>> If Gentoo is about choice, we should give our users the right to |
87 |
>> choose between the init system they like the most. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> I must be missing something as I thought they already had that choice. |
90 |
|
91 |
Please, write about something you actually manage to _know_. And also, |
92 |
please do read my post title. |
93 |
This is not a flamewar topic, I want to discuss about improving the |
94 |
systemd experience. |
95 |
|
96 |
> |
97 |
> From reading the bug, the only pro of your approach is that the user |
98 |
> does not have to edit the kernel command-line to try out a new init. |
99 |
> Initially, you tried to sell this as "lowering the bar" which is actually |
100 |
> a con afaic: if someone is trying to run Gentoo and is incapable of |
101 |
> dealing with the kernel command-line, it's likely they won't be able to |
102 |
> install it; they certainly won't be able to maintain it, ime. |
103 |
> |
104 |
> Later, we get the "some EFI bootloaders don't allow it." Could you elaborate |
105 |
> on how a system we install grub to, won't allow us to change anything? |
106 |
> I am not doubting you: I just think we need more explanation of the exact |
107 |
> context where we can install Gentoo, but not a bootloader. |
108 |
|
109 |
Being Gentoo does not absolutely mean that we have to craft watches |
110 |
and play VHS with the tongue every time we want to do something. |
111 |
Making things easy is an orthogonal concept! |
112 |
|
113 |
> |
114 |
>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd |
115 |
>> more accessible, |
116 |
> |
117 |
> Sure there is: there's also consensus that this approach is wrong for |
118 |
> Gentoo. And I have to concur, without further reasoning from you. Switching |
119 |
> init isn't done that often, and when it is a Gentoo user is expected to |
120 |
> deal with configuration. In this case, it's a doddle to set the command-line |
121 |
> to init=/sbin/fubar to try it, and then when it's running the user can |
122 |
> change the symlink, or just revert as they choose. |
123 |
> |
124 |
> If they can't handle the above, they shouldn't be on Gentoo imo. And sabayon |
125 |
> already sets up systemd, so I don't see the use-case frankly. Apart from making |
126 |
> Gentoo base-system more suitable for direct usage in Sabayon, which is not our |
127 |
> problem. |
128 |
|
129 |
That's not absolutely the point, I am sorry. The topic here is to |
130 |
improve the systemd experience, if you are an openrc user that doesn't |
131 |
care about systemd and other stuff, you are off topic. |
132 |
|
133 |
> |
134 |
> What are the effects for other downstreams? Funtoo for instance, has been |
135 |
> swimming against the upstream udev/systemd mania, from glancing at their site |
136 |
> recently. Have you consulted with other downstreams about their needs and got |
137 |
> buy-in from them too? That would strengthen your case, tho imo it's weak |
138 |
> irrespective of what systemd-preferring downstreams want: after all, they're |
139 |
> distros, not Gentoo users, and are supposed to be expert at setting things up. |
140 |
> |
141 |
> So I just don't see which Gentoo users this is helping. Making it even more |
142 |
> trivial to change init than it already is, is actually a bad thing in my eyes. |
143 |
> It gives the impression that it can be undertaken lightly which is simply bad |
144 |
> practice. |
145 |
|
146 |
We should stop thinking about Gentoo like a guru-distro. Gentoo is |
147 |
about choice, but choice != complexity. Making things easier is not |
148 |
against our Manifesto. |
149 |
Gentoo is about choice, which to me also means "embrace diversitiy". |
150 |
If you want to keep living in your little world, fine, you can and |
151 |
you're very welcome, but also people who want to have fun with new |
152 |
stuff should get the same respect. Implementing new stuff also means |
153 |
making things easier, especially in the systemd case. |
154 |
|
155 |
> |
156 |
>> while there are problems with submitting bugs about |
157 |
>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm). |
158 |
>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to |
159 |
>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after |
160 |
>> all). |
161 |
> |
162 |
> AFAIK it's been policy for a while that systemd unit files should be installed |
163 |
> by default, for all the reasons you've given. I can't see a maintainer being |
164 |
> bothered by the systemd herd adding them when they have no interest: after all |
165 |
> users can already set an INSTALL_MASK, and it makes binpkgs more useful. |
166 |
> |
167 |
|
168 |
Thanks for reminding me a policy I am supposed to already know about. |
169 |
|
170 |
>> The only remaining problem is about eselect-sysvinit, for this reason, |
171 |
>> I am probably going to create a new separate pkg called |
172 |
>> _sysvinit-next_, that contains all the fun stuff many developers were |
173 |
>> not allowed to commit (besides my needs, there is also the need of |
174 |
>> splitting sysvinit due to the issues reported in [4]). I am sure that |
175 |
>> a masked alternative sysvinit ebuild won't hurt anybody and will make |
176 |
>> Gentoo a bit more fun to use. |
177 |
>> |
178 |
>> The final outcome will hopefully be: |
179 |
>> - easier to migrate from/to systemd, at runtime, with NO recompilation |
180 |
>> at all (just enable USE=systemd and switch the device manager from |
181 |
>> *udev to systemd -- unless somebody wants to drop the udev part from |
182 |
>> systemd, if at all possible) |
183 |
> |
184 |
> How is adding USE=systemd to a system with it switched off (ie: enabling it), |
185 |
> *not* going to lead to recompilation? |
186 |
> |
187 |
|
188 |
Because you enable it once and for all and still have a _WORKING_ openrc. |
189 |
Please take more time reading about what's in my overlay before jumping the gun. |
190 |
|
191 |
>> - we give the users the right to choose without driving them nuts with |
192 |
>> weird emerge-fu. |
193 |
> |
194 |
> What weird "emerge-fu"? You haven't outlined any at all. Unless you mean |
195 |
> changing a USE flag and the standard emerge process, which isn't what anyone |
196 |
> here would think of as "emerge-fu": just normal usage. |
197 |
> |
198 |
> Also, if you can't handle emerge, you really should be on another distro. |
199 |
> |
200 |
|
201 |
Same as above. You're talking about something you haven't even managed |
202 |
to try. I'm sorry to tell you. |
203 |
|
204 |
>> - we make possible to support new init systems in future, and even |
205 |
>> specific init wrappers (bootchart anyone?) |
206 |
> |
207 |
> Which is possible already, so this is null. |
208 |
|
209 |
It is not. |
210 |
|
211 |
> |
212 |
>> - we prepare the path towards a painless migration from consolekit |
213 |
>> (deprecated for long time now) to logind (we probably need to fork it |
214 |
>> off the systemd pkg -- upstream projects are _dropping_ consolekit |
215 |
>> support right now!) |
216 |
> |
217 |
> Some people don't use either. For good reason, but let's not get into a |
218 |
> flamewar: let's leave it as that "choice" thing you mentioned before. I |
219 |
> take it those users will not see any breakage beyond missing "features"? |
220 |
|
221 |
This doesn't affect such users. |
222 |
|
223 |
> |
224 |
>> - we put back some fun into Gentoo |
225 |
> |
226 |
> Eh, I've been having much more fun since I got rid of semantic-craptop, |
227 |
> switched to mutt[A], and turned off all nubkit-related flags. My KDE came |
228 |
> back to me, and runs smooth just like 3.5 used to :) Then I replaced my |
229 |
> /bin/sh with /bin/bb which sped up bootup by an order of perceived |
230 |
> magnitude, and also sped up the _rest_ of my system. Of course, the latter |
231 |
> is only possible because Unix is designed on a modular basis, and we can |
232 |
> still swap components in and out on Linux (for now.) |
233 |
|
234 |
You're not the user I'm trying to work for. But yet nothing would |
235 |
change for you. |
236 |
|
237 |
> |
238 |
>> If you want to see a working implementation of my systemd-love |
239 |
>> efforts, just go download [1] and see things working yourself. |
240 |
>> |
241 |
>> [1] http://www.sabayon.org/release/press-release-sabayon-1304 |
242 |
>> [2] https://github.com/Sabayon/systemd-love |
243 |
>> [3] For instance: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=465236 |
244 |
>> [4] "useless crap": https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399615 |
245 |
> |
246 |
> Again, I don't think you help your case with this remark. I expected the |
247 |
> "useless crap" to be a reference to lennart-ware. In fact, he was pointing |
248 |
> out that he told you all 8 months ago to raise it upstream: several commands |
249 |
> had already been migrated in upstream git according to another comment. So |
250 |
> the "useless crap" was in fact what he'd usually call whining ime, about the |
251 |
> lack of a "magic fix." |
252 |
|
253 |
Please join Gentoo first. |
254 |
|
255 |
> |
256 |
> Please note: I fully support your effort to make it easy to switch back |
257 |
> and forth (I actually believe many people who try out openrc will stay with it.) |
258 |
> I just don't think that adding a fragile eselect module (along with "this needs |
259 |
> investigation" as things come up) is the way to do it. Nor does it solve |
260 |
> any real problem in the Gentoo context. Nor should someone change init on a whim, |
261 |
> without being ready to handle configuration. |
262 |
> |
263 |
> In fact, dumbing down Gentoo is dangerous imo. It makes it far more likely |
264 |
> that user will mess up something else more significant, likely leading to data |
265 |
> loss. Gentoo, like Unix, doesn't stop you from doing stupid things, as that |
266 |
> would stop you doing clever things. If you're not ready for that (which the |
267 |
> install process beats into you) then you're better off not using it, afaic. |
268 |
> |
269 |
> That last is actually the reason I haven't put our installer out to users on |
270 |
> the forum: I don't think it's a good idea to have an automated install unless |
271 |
> you've done at least 2 manual ones. And that would go out the window with |
272 |
> an easy installer. Perhaps that's why you feel Sabayon users need the Gentoo |
273 |
> bar lowered. |
274 |
> |
275 |
> To my mind the answer to that is to educate them some more, and make it clear |
276 |
> that Gentoo is not Sabayon for that very reason. It's not meant to hold your |
277 |
> hand: it's far more likely to slap you on the wrist. Or indeed shoot your foot |
278 |
> off if, and only if, you tell it to. |
279 |
|
280 |
Thanks for your feedback. |
281 |
|
282 |
> |
283 |
> Regards, |
284 |
> steveL. |
285 |
> |
286 |
> [A] "kmail to mutt with maildir and procmail" |
287 |
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-945868.html |
288 |
> |
289 |
> -- |
290 |
> #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
291 |
> |
292 |
|
293 |
|
294 |
|
295 |
-- |
296 |
Fabio Erculiani |