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 4F8181381F4 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:25:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8413BE0700; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a14.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873DDE06EE for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:23:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a14.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a14.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C74D839206B for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:23:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=zx2c4.com; h=mime-version:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=zx2c4.com; b= sd2hF4aQqm2utAieO3vZZrXMwpvEUuq7sn3o62Vtg+YZ3MeEwcgn9zIoZxb2sHQ2 Ww+L60YhVG2QSUQImEJ8b6tC0i+0KTS26F2nBcnXWRxLhDVjfGn3bky5wJmB6jSA Frb2Z7Z/cBxE6GBUkmKPjU892FveOTxUgMvz/IccbMM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=zx2c4.com; h=mime-version :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=zx2c4.com; bh=h AtOxKq9XoqPQTWapLxbLo16OAc=; b=pNtqu4eLqWOtAJTYX8vXldDO1fTo9Megz bTOIiweN0+j/iw1kHEKEpZa29C8Jn+RKU0Szw0Au6URHaDgkWY2b46sAY9HoIlix T+7pMhao1Ihw3trQnNpA73Wty+etCQh1svPRz475q5fZT0Sl3NEYjN9PG64ghRjm vbOMzSa8eM= Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jason@zx2c4.com) by homiemail-a14.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B59D392065 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfl17 with SMTP id fl17so3107207vcb.40 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:23:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.58.35.141 with SMTP id h13mr1635321vej.11.1345166632797; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.236.72 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 03:23:52 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC and SystemD Config File Parity From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 87a75379-fc46-4dce-8bdf-c06340b62ee1 X-Archives-Hash: 4b07c7cba382a65d4db093a39f723f6d Hey everyone, This isn't a topic meant for bike shedding, but just kind of loose exploratory inquiry. I saw a bug report about adding systemd's tmpfiles.d config format support to OpenRC (accomplished) and then some discussion about adding an ebuild utility function (dotmpfiles_d) or digging up something from systemd.eclass for this. This whole discussion got me thinking -- To what degree is there parity of configuration formats between OpenRC and SystemD? Obviously there will never be any sort of parity ever for Unit files, but what about for the general parameters of the system? machine-id, locale, timezone, hostname, et cetera. I suppose when I refer to OpenRC, I'm really talking about Baselayout. I guess more specifically what I'm wondering is: - What is the current state of differences between config file formats and locations used for OpenRC/Baselayout and SystemD? - Is parity desirable? Are some people working on this? - Are there advantages / disadvantages? Which files, for what, and why? Anyway, if folks have opinions or thoughts, I'd love to hear them. But this is just loose inquiry, not a pressing question for a project in motion, so don't feel compelled to exsanguinate your soul here. Jason