From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-143931-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA691381FB
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 23:39:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FE5E21C03B;
Thu, 27 Dec 2012 23:39:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7EE721C00C
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 23:38:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 17so12328903iea.30
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:38:15 -0800 (PST)
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=JSdUlbkIBYOfHt8UHuxLJWe0H9GEjC3m2cr9M3LcerQ=;
b=fcdAtyIAKR3cGVVPfUEf9GJ3Cf81K/5YuNKOvFA3PYkwbiOKpWIcSux5/5C3gt2DBM
2cLIcDz0BtPZV/4ka+cVYJJ1QMWMBaWUMLRXeUjwdLi1LXd0IonooHRkSF1KUeiomv+X
tLjnDpiNErwqXO8Tro8LFlNc5QrpM2tqtitkrLWvLaGvYQE0jxRN7uJhXj/Ncbb5LaKp
R8DnweXqF/pJ5ZrvYdbl7pK+Hf7nkDFXRQ7kJ7xi0zsqx0d6CDIqxChlFqBBy7UgqEx8
shprH+IhfbxYXsdr7w50rjM+lFZgRs2ErB8Q7Zp/iVivGc0YbyzqYSoYuIgwMD1BL31d
/yyg==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.53.161 with SMTP id c1mr22630268igp.95.1356651495136; Thu,
27 Dec 2012 15:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.32.195 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:38:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <420952.15724.bm@smtp140.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <50CB1942.3020900@gmail.com>
<20121216171043.71084070@khamul.example.com>
<CAG2nJkNDLDp2hkz34XXEen4SO1_Mm18G8NNDMZK6tqDr+ddWtA@mail.gmail.com>
<20121217104621.735bf43a@khamul.example.com>
<CA+czFiD+Yv_PXctATd6EYws8kpqb3WFesLZU47jMN5ZJmy3oww@mail.gmail.com>
<20121218163332.7956f31a@khamul.example.com>
<87txrd6pb3.fsf@ist.utl.pt>
<20121223182037.1553813f@khamul.example.com>
<87bodk7lb6.fsf@ist.utl.pt>
<20121224085528.56f535ec@khamul.example.com>
<50D85167.9060309@gmail.com>
<20121224204817.335033c6@khamul.example.com>
<CAA2qdGW+qyofuA-xyAiP4dpb6Ay5DUwYm=PJ8JXD_f2gFgf98w@mail.gmail.com>
<50D957F0.1060406@gmail.com>
<CADPrc80d4ArycTCg8uNTExUp6zoky1x3sNEgrR8j9XxrmOJiMw@mail.gmail.com>
<20121226221950.04342909@kc-sys.chadwicks.me.uk>
<CADPrc80mdBW5_1e2e8Vnw-jWQ_x=c1e7YVMFnde13rX_d+qZaw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+czFiAxkKEDs-cAoXPKo0w_2Z4M++RrUZ+oGAvsxZqXb-3m9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CADPrc82Dz6ZJAEWdr8s7awA7jV073X=-MFaNnvcSLga7aov_uQ@mail.gmail.com>
<420952.15724.bm@smtp140.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:38:15 -0600
Message-ID: <CADPrc83U_DugDcPepbP3A7JHOyf0WzL7DL21E_vzU24=1x_2YA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? -> what was wron
with SysVInit?
From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= <caneko@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: ddffeffd-f5b8-45f6-8733-fadeeba13574
X-Archives-Hash: e3f645ebd11b7b50387c5c6d103a4f3c
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wr=
ote:
>> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between
>> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in
>> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how*
>> to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in
>> OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And
>> it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely
>> written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power
>> that shell gives you).
>>
>
>> Then Kevin started to suggest that I know nothing about init systems,
>> and I responded in kind.
>
> I did not and apologise if you took offense.
Apology accepted, and I also apologise if my response was out of
line/with bad tone.
> I said perhaps badly that
> based on this posting, you don't have a great deal of experience in
> init systems.
Well, I haven't wrote any, but I used the ones in OpenBSD, Solaris,
Linux SysV, OpenRC systemd, and Windows NT. Used as in administering
several machines with them. So, I have some experience.
> To me, your comment demonstrated that you don't on the
> vast plethora of init systems which all actually accomplish the same
> thing daemon wise just with varying reliability and functionality
> surrounding the process of doing so. No init system can tell a daemon
> how to do anything.
You are wrong. In SysV, I can *write* the daemon in the init script.
In *that* sense, the init system tells the daemon how to do things,
and to a lesser degree, it happens when you use a shell to launch
daemons.
> So your comment.
>
> What to do, how to do actually has nothing to do with systemd.
>
> What does is having to learn a new more restrictive non
> intuitive and non externally useful or non universal *declarative*
> language. Like polkit/pkexecs javascript vs sudo. I will take sudoers
> every time and for good reason.
I'm not 100% happy with Polkit use of JS, but having finally
understood how it works, I think is kind of nice. I believe role
verification and authentication is one of the tasks where a
Turing-complete language actually be justified.
> "Shell scripts usually spiral out of control" is just utter FUD. I
> do realise you didn't originate this FUD, but it shouldn't be
> spread. Yes some corner case wants in init that some thought
> impossible in shell can get complex by scripting them but a small c
> tool following the unix philosophy simply becomes a shell command
> potentially useful in even unforeseeable cases.
Funny that you said that; if you are really interested, take a look at
/usr/lib/systemd in a systemd machine. Almost all of those are really
simple C programs that do one thing, and one thing only. Most of them
don't reach the 100 lines of C code.
To me, a Turing-complete language for starting and stoping services is
overkill. And also there is the Halting Problem; you simply cannot
workaround that.
> We are dealing with simple options meant for admins here. As I said
> OpenBSDs scripts are usually rediculously simple and should often
> really be called commands. As others have said the argument of function
> being in the scripts rather than the daemon is an irrelevance to using
> systemd. Systemd may try to become the whole OS but I'm fairly sure it
> hasn't plagiarised the c code to check and deal with ssh keys yet. That
> is rightly the job of the aptly named ssh-keygen and IMO some very
> simple shell code.
Yeah, running from the install
script/Makefile/post-inst-hook/whatever. Not the init system. IMO.
> The arch sshd script is only 44 lines and includes more than that to
> make the output colourful. The gentoo sshd script is actually simple
> too and doesn't do anything most of the time and is easily modifiable
> in absolutely predictable ways.
I'm not arguing that; I'm arguing that it can be done even more
simple, and even more easily modifiable.
But like a said to Pandou; let's just agree to disagree.
Regards.
--=20
Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n
Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico