[gentoo-dev] Re: [openrc] [systemd] make `service` common for both OpenRC and SystemD (like Debian/Ubuntu/whatever did)

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

Andrew Savchenko posted on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:44:11 +0300 as excerpted:

> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 12:05:07 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
>> W dniu nie, 17.09.2017 o godzinie 12∶12 +0300, użytkownik Andrew
>> Savchenko napisał:
>> > On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 02:56:08 +0700 Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
>> > > Hi there!
>> > > 
>> > > Every time I switch from mastering service on my work
>> > > (Ubuntu-powered) to my own server farm (Gentoo powered) I'm going a
>> > > bit frustrated: Ubuntu (with all my hate to many other things in
>> > > it) has nice user-friendly way of managing services: you can freely
>> > > call any of `service <servicename> action` irrelevant to which
>> > > init-system is currently in use. Will it be systemd, or (whatever
>> > > there is alternative there). `service` wrapper will detect it
>> > > anyway and will do the proper things (forward it to either systemd
>> > > or another service manager).
>> > > 
>> > > I'd like to suggest to remove `service` widget from openrc and make
>> > > it the part of (which package? baselayout?)? Here is a pseudocode
>> > > of how I see it:
>> > > 
>> > > ```
>> > > servicename=${1}
>> > > action=${2}
>> > > 
>> > > if in_systemd; then
>> > > 	systemctl "${action}" "${servicename}"
>> > > else
>> > > 	rc-service "${servicename}" "${action}"
>> > > fi ```
>> > > 
>> > > Well, actually, there may be some more logic (for example, instance
>> > > units (`unit@instance` in `systemd` vs `unit.instance` in openrc),
>> > > "enable" action (forward it to `rc-update add` for `openrc`,
>> > > probably) and maybe some more. But anyway, the conception is
>> > > something like that.
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > What do you think about that?
>> > 
>> > https://xkcd.com/927/
>> > 
>> > We will create even more confusion for Gentoo users with one more
>> > tool to do the same stuff.
>> > 
>> > Of course you are free to implement some separate wrapper package,
>> > but it must be completely optional, since some users will have no use
>> > for it including myself.
>> > 
>> > Really, unifying distributions is futile. We will have either the
>> > same and only distribution (to rule them all) or an attempt will
>> > fail. The same way you can try to unify emerge and apt tools via some
>> > wrapper manager.
>> 
>> Fun fact: systemd was created to unify distributions in one init
>> system.
>  
> Exactly. This case is perfectly covered by https://xkcd.com/927/ :)

Well, I'd argue the case for "not 'perfectly'", because for better or for 
worse, systemd has had rather more luck at cross-distro init-system 
unification than that comic suggests.  There's still special-cases like 
small embedded where systemd simply won't fit, and there's still a rather 
strident no-special-case opposition, but virtually all the "don't care as 
long as it works" distros are systemd, now -- the middle ground simply 
isn't there any more, it's all systemd.

That's rather more successful as a unifying standard than the comic 
suggests, so while the comic does cover the general situation and perhaps 
matches the first few years near perfectly, as the situation has evolved 
by now, the punchline panel would have to be rather different to be a 
"perfect" cover.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman