Re: [gentoo-dev] pid 1 design

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:27:37 +0200
> Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
>
>> Rich Freeman wrote:

[snip]

>> > Systemd isn't a like-for-like replacement for traditional inits.
>> > It aims to be much more, so this is a bit of an apples-to-oranges
>> > comparison.
>>
>> Yes, it is much more, which is a very nice thing on the systems
>> it supports. I believe systemd is not usuable at all outside Linux
>> and will not likely ever be, so for prefix there will anyway always
>> be systemd alternatives in Gentoo! And on those systems the service
>> files should never be installed.
>
> Considering that systemd unit files are sometimes shipped with upstream
> packages, and often they are practically equivalent to openrc init
> scripts, I'd rather see openrc supporting that file format
> as an extension and using it instead of duplicating the same thing
> in init.d scripts.
>
> And yes, that means that people masking service files shoot themselves
> in the foot.
>
> Also, if I had more time (or support), I'd probably start working
> on a systemd-compatible init system with a more portable design.

I would find this very interesting. I doubt I could find time for much
active contribution, unfortunately, but I'd help where I could.

>
>> > Again, I'm not sure that it HAS to work the way it does
>>
>> I would say that it does, because it is required in order to
>> accomplish what systemd wants to deliver.
>
> Not necessarily. You can move many 'extra' systemd features outside of
> PID 1. For example, unit dependency trees are complex by definition
> and practically not necessary for PID 1.
>
> In other words, it could be designed to move more complex (and thus
> risky) tasks outside of PID 1.

+1

-- 
:wq