[gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd (was: Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697))

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3765 bytes --]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization,
> extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of
> that. Systemd upstream developers have made it abundantly clear they
> are not interested in working with Gentoo developers to see to the
> needs of source-based distros. They stand for vertical integration
> instead of customization and configurability.
> 
> And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to
> Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of our developers and
> Gentoo is becoming more and more welcoming to it.

By the way, we should really keep the separation between systemd itself
and the unit files. I agree that systemd is not the best thing we could
have. But the unit file format is, er, good enough -- and has
the advantage of eventually taking a lot of work from our shoulders.

Although some of the ideas (esp. wrt targets) are near to crazy
and awfully hard to understand, that's what we have and trying to do
something else is eventually going to make people's lives harder.

We should *really* work on supporting the unit files within OpenRC
(aside to init.d files). That's a way to at least:

a) reuse the work that has been done upstream already (when it was
done),

b) have common service names and startup behavior in all relevant
distros (which is really beneficial to the users).

Considering the design of OpenRC itself, it wouldn't be *that hard*.
Actually, a method similar to one used in oldnet would simply work.
That is, symlinking init.d files to a common 'systemd-wrapper'
executable which would parse the unit files.


On the completely different topic, I agree that systemd design is far
from the best and the way it's maintained is just bad. I was interested
in the past in creating an improved alternative using compatible file
format and libraries, while choosing a better design, improving
portability and keeping stuff less integrated.

But the fact is -- I doubt it will make sense, much like the eudev
project. And it will take much more work, and give much less
appreciation.

First of all, working on it will require a lot of work. Seeing how
large systemd become and how rapidly it is developing, establishing
a good alternative (even dropping such useless parts as the Journal)
will take at least twice that work.

Then, it will require people working on it. People who know the details
of various systems and who are willing to spend their time on it.
And there wouldn't be much of people really willing to work on it.

The systemd haters will refuse the project because of its resemblance
to systemd. The systemd lovers will refuse it because of its
resemblance to systemd. And the OpenRC lovers will want to design it
to resemble OpenRC which is just pointless. Then the few remaining
people will find systemd 'good enough'.

And even if there are a few people who will want to work on it,
and design a 'good systemd', they wouldn't get much appreciation.
Fedora definitely won't care for it. It would have to be really
definitely awesome for most Linux distros to even notice it.
And I doubt *BSD people would be interested in something external.

It is possible that systemd upstream will steal a few patches or ideas
from it. Yet they will never apply any of the really important changes,
so the project will have to be maintained indefinitely. The only hope
for it would be to win over systemd users which I doubt will happen.

So there's a lot of work, no fame or money in it, and most likely more
work being the only future. Anyone volunteering?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]