From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SAtJR-0003TA-OB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:29:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98982E0712; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:28:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A571CE0AC5 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:27:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so2526930bkw.40 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:27:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=W0sZPIKj8F4cci0yvNRPyncxr6oMVpZpd5uzw91g77Y=; b=BD8k145WzB50emXGNLPyFJg52vK+4L10Ot2TjB/EDqDaTAHx91rx5K96lzYZ1F2hnX VqG7dMsR3PqyxlJD/a12znwets65qqIjQ85K3uzjtzq133Gn7wAPOUOBqnRp/tzPKxvt DYOhTb5IXoiK9ra4huRKpp4nhHOWKZynDFILBLMxSI0flIRozb3efR1ny2N3eBnneN7p B22PY7AfqxBIsYGyWINP7JPBekBPe38h0pRvbZnPfHkdN0O+CEesElFKQQQNxg37zHTW lRlU1RAcV4JjkEKMBz+bYFBzt++nvnjW04Ulz4HIJWWGUh9U9u2C27Bdj8SpZiMEQdZy 8BFA== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.81.3 with SMTP id zw3mr69198bkb.30.1332466037555; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.164.76 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:27:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120322211358.GA19803@waltdnes.org> References: <20120318151502.36891b0a@khamul.example.com> <20120318222337.GA11848@waltdnes.org> <20120319003526.5cb093c3@khamul.example.com> <20120319225822.GA13451@waltdnes.org> <20120320011824.0c4f0748@khamul.example.com> <20120321044027.GC15853@waltdnes.org> <20120321162924.08ac20df@khamul.example.com> <20120321225509.GA18601@waltdnes.org> <20120322211358.GA19803@waltdnes.org> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:27:17 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: systemd? [ Was: The End Is Near ... ] From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 4f7af039-e27f-4efd-b498-8c961c7db526 X-Archives-Hash: 4d3ee2e7a3b42435f5ec769686064f54 On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:35:55PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote > >> What we're talking about with systemd vs openrc, and things like ssh'd >> first-time initialization is all within the realm of responsibility of >> the packager. It's a shift in the way the distribution itself works. >> We're not talking about a scenario where you shunt things upstream, so >> the whole "your position would have rejected Linux" angle is a red >> herring. > > =C2=A0This is a frustrating game of whack-a-mole. =C2=A0Person A comes up= with a > position, I rebut it, and then person B comes up with a different > position, and I have to rebut it.. =C2=A0There have been people in this > thread who have said that the program best knows what it needs, and > should handle its own initialization. =C2=A0That was what I was replying = to. > I'll reply to your position now. > >> Why does that spawned process have to be sshd? Why can't it be some >> shell script which does the one-time checks, and then launches sshd >> itself? > > =C2=A0So instead of the initscript doing the checking+setup and launching > the service, it launches a a second script... which does the > checking+setup and launches the service . =C2=A0See my post wit= h > the joke of digging a second hole to dump the dirt from the first hole > into. =C2=A0Instead of one script, we now have two scripts. =C2=A0This is= *NOT* > simplification. No. In a system V scenario, you'd probably just symlink to the genericized init script. In the systemd scenario, as I understand it, you have a configuration file (distinct from a script), and you'd include the path to the genericized init script there. What I'm talking about is an implementation of the adapter pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapter_pattern If there are going to be competing init systems (and there will be), and a service needs to be compatible with both (and there will be such services), then that's going to be the most elegant solution. > >> Why does that shell script need to be distributed as part of the >> init system's package, and not part of the package associated with >> the service? > > =C2=A0I don't understand what you're arguing here. =C2=A0*THE INITSCRIPT = IS OWNED > BY THE SERVICE PACKAGE*, not by the init package. =C2=A0E.g. net-misc/ope= nssh, > not sys-apps/openrc. > > waltdnes@d530 ~ $ equery b /etc/init.d/sshd > =C2=A0* Searching for /etc/init.d/sshd ... > net-misc/openssh-5.8_p1-r1 (/etc/init.d/sshd) Sure. And that's what I was arguing. Though by the sound of it, there's stuffed in the openrc package which doesn't need to be there, and a blog post flameeyes posted today suggests the systemd package is intended to absorb the hardware database. ( http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2012/03/refreshing-a-4-years-old-problem ) > >> Having the shell script be part of the package associated with the >> service keeps bugs related to that script associated with that >> package. > > =C2=A0That's the way it is right now. =C2=A0See above. And that's the way it should be. > >> At least, that's the way I see it. Any issue of compatibility between >> the two can be addressed by the service's package manager, either by >> adaption via that script, or by expressing an explicit dependency on >> one init architecture or another. > > =C2=A0My point in this whole argument is that there is some checking and > setup that has to be done before launch. =C2=A0Therefore shuffling off so= me > or all of the shellscript code to another script is a pointless "shell > game" (sorry) that adds no value. See reference to the adapter pattern above. Systemd has its merits in its capabilities. System V init has merits in that it's far more portable. Open source software which operates as a system service will need to support both. There are, of course, things I loathe. I loathe the apparent mindset behind systemd and behind udev, wherein all things belong as part of a monolithic system. That runs counter to principles of modular design, portability and even systemic stability in changing things. I loathe the desire to lunge forward without working out a transition plan, or even having the appearance of interest in one. And I loathe the terrible PR. --=20 :wq