Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: yngwin@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:09:48
Message-Id: 20130508190717.0aecea6a@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users by Ben de Groot
1 On Thu, 9 May 2013 00:21:53 +0800
2 Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> wrote:
5 > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
6 > > <chithanh@g.o> wrote:
7 > >> Ben de Groot schrieb:
8 > >>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> wrote:
9 > >>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
10 > >>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
11 > >>>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
12 > >>>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to
13 > >>>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after
14 > >>>> all).
15 > >>> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd
16 > >>> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which
17 > >>> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I
18 > >>> would think it is better to add them to a separate systemd-units
19 > >>> package.
20 > >>
21 > >> Note that a similar thing is already done with the selinux policy packages.
22 > >
23 > > Upstreams will _DO_ ship systemd units at some point in future. It's a
24 > > completely different thing. Don't compare oranges to apples.
25 >
26 > Where upstreams ship systemd units, I don't think there is any issue.
27 > The problem is you are asking Gentoo maintainers to add unit files
28 > that upstream is not shipping. In this case we should test and
29 > maintain these ourselves, which is an additional burden for very
30 > little (if any) gain.
31 >
32 > >>
33 > >> Mostly the complaints against adding systemd units are that it would
34 > >> unnecessarily clutter non-systemd installs. Users who complain are told
35 > >> to set INSTALL_MASK but that is somewhat unwieldy.
36 > >
37 > > Cluttering a system by just installing 4kb files? The council has
38 > > spoken. If you don't like the decision, I am sorry.
39 > > I can say the same for init scripts, they are freaking cluttering my
40 > > system and they're all over.
41 > > Or perhaps all these man pages, I don't need man pages locally but
42 > > still most ebuilds do install them. What do we do?
43 > >
44 > > Let's be serious here.
45 >
46 > You are forgetting that OpenRC is, and will remain for the foreseeable
47 > future, the default on Gentoo. Any systemd related files are
48 > completely useless for most of our users. And those of us who consider
49 > systemd a cancer do not want to see such files installed at all.
50 >
51 > Gentoo is about choice and configurability. This means we will
52 > accommodate both sides: so those who want to use an alternative init
53 > system can do so, and those who want to avoid it can also keep doing
54 > so.
55
56 It is quite likely that OpenRC will start supporting unit files soon.
57 Then in many cases we will be able to strip down this to just one init
58 format which would satisfy both init systems.
59
60 Of course, people who are thoughtlessly removing all systemd files
61 for the sake of 4 KiB will suffer then.
62
63 --
64 Best regards,
65 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature