1 |
On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 |
3 |
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization, |
6 |
>> extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of |
7 |
>> that. Systemd upstream developers have made it abundantly clear they |
8 |
>> are not interested in working with Gentoo developers to see to the |
9 |
>> needs of source-based distros. They stand for vertical integration |
10 |
>> instead of customization and configurability. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to |
13 |
>> Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of our developers and |
14 |
>> Gentoo is becoming more and more welcoming to it. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> By the way, we should really keep the separation between systemd itself |
17 |
> and the unit files. I agree that systemd is not the best thing we could |
18 |
> have. But the unit file format is, er, good enough -- and has |
19 |
> the advantage of eventually taking a lot of work from our shoulders. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Although some of the ideas (esp. wrt targets) are near to crazy |
22 |
> and awfully hard to understand, that's what we have and trying to do |
23 |
> something else is eventually going to make people's lives harder. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> We should *really* work on supporting the unit files within OpenRC |
26 |
> (aside to init.d files). That's a way to at least: |
27 |
> |
28 |
> a) reuse the work that has been done upstream already (when it was |
29 |
> done), |
30 |
> |
31 |
> b) have common service names and startup behavior in all relevant |
32 |
> distros (which is really beneficial to the users). |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Considering the design of OpenRC itself, it wouldn't be *that hard*. |
35 |
> Actually, a method similar to one used in oldnet would simply work. |
36 |
> That is, symlinking init.d files to a common 'systemd-wrapper' |
37 |
> executable which would parse the unit files. |
38 |
|
39 |
I think this idea actually makes sense. Re-using upstream work seems a |
40 |
logical idea, and could ease maintenance. Of course the issue is |
41 |
whether the OpenRC devs see any benefit in this. |
42 |
|
43 |
> On the completely different topic, I agree that systemd design is far |
44 |
> from the best and the way it's maintained is just bad. I was interested |
45 |
> in the past in creating an improved alternative using compatible file |
46 |
> format and libraries, while choosing a better design, improving |
47 |
> portability and keeping stuff less integrated. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> But the fact is -- I doubt it will make sense, much like the eudev |
50 |
> project. And it will take much more work, and give much less |
51 |
> appreciation. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> First of all, working on it will require a lot of work. Seeing how |
54 |
> large systemd become and how rapidly it is developing, establishing |
55 |
> a good alternative (even dropping such useless parts as the Journal) |
56 |
> will take at least twice that work. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Then, it will require people working on it. People who know the details |
59 |
> of various systems and who are willing to spend their time on it. |
60 |
> And there wouldn't be much of people really willing to work on it. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> The systemd haters will refuse the project because of its resemblance |
63 |
> to systemd. The systemd lovers will refuse it because of its |
64 |
> resemblance to systemd. And the OpenRC lovers will want to design it |
65 |
> to resemble OpenRC which is just pointless. Then the few remaining |
66 |
> people will find systemd 'good enough'. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> And even if there are a few people who will want to work on it, |
69 |
> and design a 'good systemd', they wouldn't get much appreciation. |
70 |
> Fedora definitely won't care for it. It would have to be really |
71 |
> definitely awesome for most Linux distros to even notice it. |
72 |
> And I doubt *BSD people would be interested in something external. |
73 |
> |
74 |
> It is possible that systemd upstream will steal a few patches or ideas |
75 |
> from it. Yet they will never apply any of the really important changes, |
76 |
> so the project will have to be maintained indefinitely. The only hope |
77 |
> for it would be to win over systemd users which I doubt will happen. |
78 |
> |
79 |
> So there's a lot of work, no fame or money in it, and most likely more |
80 |
> work being the only future. Anyone volunteering? |
81 |
|
82 |
I agree it would be pretty hard to carve out a niche for this. |
83 |
Personally I would see more in runit. |
84 |
|
85 |
-- |
86 |
Cheers, |
87 |
|
88 |
Ben | yngwin |
89 |
Gentoo developer |