Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:24:15
Message-Id: 20130508182406.GB8256@linux1
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users by Ben de Groot
1 On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 12:21:53AM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
2 > On 8 May 2013 23:49, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> wrote:
3 > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
4 > > <chithanh@g.o> wrote:
5 > >> Ben de Groot schrieb:
6 > >>> On 1 May 2013 18:04, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> wrote:
7 > >>>> It looks like there is some consensus on the effort of making systemd
8 > >>>> more accessible, while there are problems with submitting bugs about
9 > >>>> new systemd units of the sort that maintainers just_dont_answer(tm).
10 > >>>> In this case, I am just giving 3 weeks grace period for maintainers to
11 > >>>> answer and then I usually go ahead adding units (I'm in systemd@ after
12 > >>>> all).
13 > >>> In my opinion you should not be asking maintainers to add systemd
14 > >>> units to their packages. They most likely do not have systems on which
15 > >>> they can test these, and very few users would need them anyway. I
16 > >>> would think it is better to add them to a separate systemd-units
17 > >>> package.
18 > >>
19 > >> Note that a similar thing is already done with the selinux policy packages.
20 > >
21 > > Upstreams will _DO_ ship systemd units at some point in future. It's a
22 > > completely different thing. Don't compare oranges to apples.
23 >
24 > Where upstreams ship systemd units, I don't think there is any issue.
25 > The problem is you are asking Gentoo maintainers to add unit files
26 > that upstream is not shipping. In this case we should test and
27 > maintain these ourselves, which is an additional burden for very
28 > little (if any) gain.
29 >
30 > >>
31 > >> Mostly the complaints against adding systemd units are that it would
32 > >> unnecessarily clutter non-systemd installs. Users who complain are told
33 > >> to set INSTALL_MASK but that is somewhat unwieldy.
34 > >
35 > > Cluttering a system by just installing 4kb files? The council has
36 > > spoken. If you don't like the decision, I am sorry.
37 > > I can say the same for init scripts, they are freaking cluttering my
38 > > system and they're all over.
39 > > Or perhaps all these man pages, I don't need man pages locally but
40 > > still most ebuilds do install them. What do we do?
41 > >
42 > > Let's be serious here.
43 >
44 > You are forgetting that OpenRC is, and will remain for the foreseeable
45 > future, the default on Gentoo. Any systemd related files are
46 > completely useless for most of our users. And those of us who consider
47 > systemd a cancer do not want to see such files installed at all.
48
49 As was said above, the distro policy is that we always install
50 configuration files. This is how we handle logrotate and xinetd among
51 other things.
52
53 I would like to see the logrotate, xinet and systemd use flags used for
54 this, but to get that to happen we need to change the policy -- you do
55 that by putting this on the agenda for the council.
56
57 If we do this, I would rather change it across the board and not just
58 for systemd. So, this would mean adding an openrc use flag to every
59 ebuild that installs openrc init scripts and using it to control that as
60 well.
61
62 > Gentoo is about choice and configurability. This means we will
63 > accommodate both sides: so those who want to use an alternative init
64 > system can do so, and those who want to avoid it can also keep doing
65 > so.
66
67 The argument in the past has been that we aren't taking away the choice
68 and configurability since we have INSTALL_MASK.
69
70 > >>
71 > >> A separate package for the unit file would solve this problem nicely.
72 > >
73 > > No, it will generate a gazillion of other problems. Like conflicts
74 > > arising every single day, just to name one.
75 >
76 > I think you are making the problem bigger than it is. Are there really
77 > that many packages that need a unit file, but upstream doesn't ship
78 > them yet, and many that are in the process of changing that? Either
79 > way, it should be an easy fix for systemd enthusiasts.
80
81 Having separate packages for systemd units that we ship would be pretty
82 unwieldy. I can see advantages to it, but I can definitely also see
83 disadvantages. This same thinking could apply to OpenRC init scripts as
84 well.
85
86 William

Attachments

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