| 1 |
On 12/12/2013 05:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett <creffett@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the |
| 4 |
>> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc -> |
| 5 |
>> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that change |
| 6 |
>> concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than |
| 7 |
>> in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it |
| 8 |
>> takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton |
| 9 |
>> of broken systems. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> ++ |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No reason the symlink couldn't be done in the ebuild either - which |
| 14 |
> keeps the package itself clean. There could be news to clean up |
| 15 |
> inittab and such, and then perhaps down the road the compat symlink |
| 16 |
> could be removed. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Nice to see interest in Debian (granted, I know there was interest |
| 19 |
> quite a while back). Having more and better options is just good for |
| 20 |
> everybody - I'd like to see OpenRC become the best traditional-style |
| 21 |
> service manager around (though honestly I'd be hard-pressed to think |
| 22 |
> of any that are quite as good already). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I think one thing that would be nice to dream about someday would be a |
| 25 |
> systemd-compatibility init.d script. That would be symlinked to a |
| 26 |
> service name just like a typical network interface script, and would |
| 27 |
> look for a unit file and interpret it (perhaps just taking a path from |
| 28 |
> conf.d). I'd think it wouldn't be hard to do, setting aside the more |
| 29 |
> active-management features of systemd. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Well, given that systemd unit files don't express dependencies ... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I've thought about it and can't figure out a way to make mixed-mode work |
| 35 |
sanely, at all. You'd have to either manually order the startup |
| 36 |
sequence, or annotate the unit files with dependency info. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Plus you'd need some machinery like socket-activation proxies or you're |
| 39 |
throwing away even more (to the point where the unit file is just a way |
| 40 |
to run an executable) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I don't think this can be done in a way that adds value to users. |
Archives