Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: making sysvinit optional

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:02 PM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
>
> > RDEPEND="sysv-utils? ( !sys-apps/sysvinit )
> >          !sysv-utils? ( sys-apps/sysvinit )"
>
>  I like this, but the second branch (!sysv-utils) is not really needed,
>  because if we put sysvinit as the first RDEPEND of virtual/init, we
>  don't need to worry about installing it through rdepend in openrc.

Does openrc actually work with all the stuff you have in your proposed
virtual/init?

For example, you have systemd in there.  I'm pretty sure you can't use
systemd as PID1 and then use openrc as your service manager.  I mean,
you probably could come up with some way to do that, but certainly
openrc doesn't work that way today, or systemd for that matter.

You have runit in there as well.  Can you use runit as PID1 and openrc
as your service manager?

If the only init implementations that openrc actually works with are
sysvinit and its own init, then I'd just do it the systemd way.  The
init virtual only adds value insofar as these other packages actually
provide an init that any other service manager could actually use.

If openrc works with busybox init/etc I could see an argument for
maybe having a virtual that can pull in either, though in that case it
might make sense to use that in systemd as well.

> We
>  can also add sys-apps/openrc as an rdepend of sys-apps/sysvinit
>  possibly. I'll take a look at that.

I think it makes more sense to have a service manager pull in a
compatible PID1 rather than the reverse.  For example, systemd can
pull in sysvinit for access to shutdown/telinit/etc but it makes no
sense in that case to force openrc to get installed.  You could even
use sysvinit without any other service manager.

-- 
Rich