Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? -> what was wron with SysVInit?
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 03:49:52
Message-Id: CAG2nJkOG=VtXb=UAGJgFs9u5-T1R5-ukv6sxbqZsfmO7JPQJjA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? -> what was wron with SysVInit? by Pandu Poluan
1 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote:
2 > An example: A dev needs a newer version of a package. We upgrade it. It
3 > refuses to startup properly, but going back is out of the question because
4 > the dev *needs* the features only available in the new version. We check the
5 > (extremely) detailed logs. We find out what made the package balked. We do
6 > some changes, and all is well.
7 >
8 > Another example: After a security audit, we are required to upgrade a
9 > certain daemon to a new version, despite the current version running well.
10 > As we feared, the new version can't start. We use the detailed log to find
11 > out what happened. We made changes. It works again.
12 >
13 > In the two examples I give, having a C program doing all the starting will
14 > certainly mean that complex things have to be done, not to mention the
15 > headache of compiling them -- and possibly fail.
16
17 You obviously haven't the slightest _clue_ what the hell you're talking about.
18 1) systemd does not prevent you from checking logs. If anything the
19 systemd journal gives you more fine-grained tools for ensuring that
20 some logs came from some daemon, not so easy to ensure when your log
21 file is being peppered with auth attempts and whatnot.
22 2) the "make some changes" part you mentioned has little, if anything,
23 to do with the init script that started it. "Any Enterprise SysAdmin
24 worth his salt", to use your term, knows it's 99% something he
25 overlooked in the config settings that are independent of the startup
26 system.
27 3) "Having a C program doing all the starting" doesn't imply complex
28 things have to be done, because in most cases your startup script -
29 whatever it's written in - simply calls the program with the right
30 arguments. Ironically, shell scripts only appear simpler because
31 _someone has already done the complex things for you_.
32 --
33 This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social
34 Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no
35 Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none