From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77F21381F3 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:32:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D8A8E09CD; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:32:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (mail-ie0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41038E0984 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:32:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x12so15449741ief.26 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 01:32:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XL4jaDlQFO1xkeX2QlfhpuA6bMVjQ9Id1pt9v4mUuOM=; b=xn91YbMt4tCkGcNP4nhCMeadtZu8noCZB5t8xJoRTPly4VhnTvgPtmfZQeho6dHwr+ W3L6pzBSrneAqHuT0c/aJs70UMc73T8lKPy6d1rC78+QC6fkOs6glq4nYuwMa5o3UYy/ JDtV0BF3PbIC7E3rNtr+frfk2WFgqRGwPCDokAKyXo6QZ4xZme9DNMfkRYhO7hw4oD25 J6pnGigGKDIIhHADDQ7wJB12Md/uW3J9bnUptMm5CUHZ85y98jGuCtJ8wJRFDNCipY90 Nhhk8c1sRuMI4WnPj4uIqBhpvIIQ3x5P63GvsQGRHmQJxRCV7D+k5Cc0ovSkdb6T+6z3 A3Rw== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.146.3 with SMTP id jw3mr15264599icc.39.1369557136453; Sun, 26 May 2013 01:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yngwin@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.91.9 with HTTP; Sun, 26 May 2013 01:32:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130526093755.42b62259@gentoo.org> References: <20130526093755.42b62259@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 16:32:16 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lcQybo60Z05YWrIenKEA3_1mP0M Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd (was: Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)) From: Ben de Groot To: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Cc: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: d53920cc-0202-4131-a1bd-b826ca5af38f X-Archives-Hash: e983899b3a9ffa6c91fbc59437d093a1 On 26 May 2013 15:37, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 > Ben de Groot 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. I think this idea actually makes sense. Re-using upstream work seems a logical idea, and could ease maintenance. Of course the issue is whether the OpenRC devs see any benefit in this. > 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? I agree it would be pretty hard to carve out a niche for this. Personally I would see more in runit. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer