Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:22:34
Message-Id: CAG2nJkM-DuLz7N4-QM+cgT=yBDCPd9v23_fu1WHhM2HWXm2C3w@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo by Daniel Campbell
1 On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Campbell <lists@××××××××.us> wrote:
2 > On 08/19/2013 12:52 AM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
3 >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:54 AM, pk <peterk2@××××××××.se> wrote:
4 >>> On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote:
5 >>>
6 >>>> I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL
7 >>>> monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is
8 >>>> Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are
9 >>>> RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should
10 >>>> follow?
11 >>>
12 >>> Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of
13 >>> Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart
14 >>> Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that
15 >>> said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and
16 >>> the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Are
17 >>> they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as
18 >>> miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying
19 >>> to turn Gentoo into Fedora?
20 >>>
21 >>
22 >> This kind of response has been repeatedly grating on my nerves
23 >> on this mailing list. It's just so TECHNICALLY WRONG, but more than
24 >> that I feel that it hints at a deeper problem about user attitudes and the
25 >> need to act like a know-it-all that is so prevalent on this mailing list.
26 >>
27 >> Systemd is _not_ a monolithic design. I don't know how anyone who
28 >> has taken even a casual glance at it, or its documentation, can say
29 >> otherwise. It's so reminiscent of qmail or postfix, where you have a
30 >> bunch of small programs each doing one thing well, but for init
31 >> systems rather than for mail, that it's just one step away from being
32 >> the kind of program you show to kids to teach them how to Unix.
33 >
34 > It's not monolithic? Okay, then why won't logind work separately after
35 > systemd-206?
36
37 Here's the release notes for 205:
38
39 * logind has been updated to make use of scope and slice units
40 for managing user sessions. As a user logs in he will get
41 his own private slice unit, to which all sessions are added
42 as scope units. We also added support for automatically
43 adding an instance of user@.service for the user into the
44 slice. Effectively logind will no longer create cgroup
45 hierarchies on its own now, it will defer entirely to PID 1
46 for this by means of scope, service and slice units. Since
47 user sessions this way become entities managed by PID 1
48 the output of "systemctl" is now a lot more comprehensive.
49
50 That's why. Logind used to have more scope than it used to, now it
51 defers some of its functionality to other programs so that it could do
52 it's "one thing well". That's the very definition of "not monolithic".
53
54 Why can't you make it work separately after 205? Because 205 is
55 a MAJOR VERSION BUMP on an actively developed program.
56 Nobody's yet written a program that fills the functionality that logind
57 depends on. Better evidence is that it could work outside of systemd
58 in the first place. You don't expect public APIs to remain stable
59 past major version bumps.
60
61 So there, once again a long, long pompous rant of acting like a
62 know-it-all about stuff you've never bothered reading.
63 --
64 This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social
65 Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [x] no
66 Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org>