| 1 |
W dniu nie, 17.09.2017 o godzinie 12∶12 +0300, użytkownik Andrew |
| 2 |
Savchenko napisał: |
| 3 |
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 02:56:08 +0700 Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Hi there! |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Every time I switch from mastering service on my work (Ubuntu-powered) to my |
| 7 |
> > own server farm (Gentoo powered) I'm going a bit frustrated: Ubuntu (with all |
| 8 |
> > my hate to many other things in it) has nice user-friendly way of managing |
| 9 |
> > services: you can freely call any of `service <servicename> action` irrelevant |
| 10 |
> > to which init-system is currently in use. Will it be systemd, or (whatever |
| 11 |
> > there is alternative there). `service` wrapper will detect it anyway and will |
| 12 |
> > do the proper things (forward it to either systemd or another service |
| 13 |
> > manager). |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > I'd like to suggest to remove `service` widget from openrc and make it the |
| 16 |
> > part of (which package? baselayout?)? Here is a pseudocode of how I see it: |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > ``` |
| 19 |
> > servicename=${1} |
| 20 |
> > action=${2} |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > if in_systemd; then |
| 23 |
> > systemctl "${action}" "${servicename}" |
| 24 |
> > else |
| 25 |
> > rc-service "${servicename}" "${action}" |
| 26 |
> > fi |
| 27 |
> > ``` |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > Well, actually, there may be some more logic (for example, instance units |
| 30 |
> > (`unit@instance` in `systemd` vs `unit.instance` in openrc), "enable" action |
| 31 |
> > (forward it to `rc-update add` for `openrc`, probably) and maybe some more. |
| 32 |
> > But anyway, the conception is something like that. |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > What do you think about that? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> https://xkcd.com/927/ |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> We will create even more confusion for Gentoo users with one more |
| 40 |
> tool to do the same stuff. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Of course you are free to implement some separate wrapper package, |
| 43 |
> but it must be completely optional, since some users will have no |
| 44 |
> use for it including myself. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Really, unifying distributions is futile. We will have either the |
| 47 |
> same and only distribution (to rule them all) or an attempt will |
| 48 |
> fail. The same way you can try to unify emerge and apt tools via |
| 49 |
> some wrapper manager. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Fun fact: systemd was created to unify distributions in one init system. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Best regards, |
| 55 |
Michał Górny |
Archives