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 25D351381FB for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA94C21C118; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92BFC21C0B7 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id o1so6731245wic.5 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 05:56:38 -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=Z4b3CUdBFVa7rTyweXRmPsT2ZGS3HFwEtx8X5yTnlTI=; b=V7WMh5/wH3wv637QEXO52Kg6Z1QIW3uMCUMlj1/s3tLpn8bZ1Jwu+fgWnsfYrdFk8T zDtz/yUB68cCcVza0mTC/8knwOxTWP4uiUuW9jdq0OZ2J7UJ7VXzI5K4bs3oqDhO6CJ+ T3c+E2XyAi2nSbNmXgZlDRZPAYoHutVvs1cRncL7rAOwJsMwms8c1H2NQUaATK1TOi6+ MHLYNip3rNTu14XMF4/m9e44Y3/s4EzmdzcFprbnXmUzHvNzT9qi6YPEbZAvN7VojSvW Z+ycpYjAYNzZ1CINvOzT2fMGj+6ZIJaKbzZcqRrxOwsyS4QDGmDcn0fUQKFWjMhgTBCb wmgw== 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 10.194.238.5 with SMTP id vg5mr39748243wjc.40.1356443798263; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 05:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.255.71 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 05:56:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <50CB1942.3020900@gmail.com> <50CB4A3C.1030109@gmail.com> <50CB5406.7040404@gmail.com> <8738z7hgsa.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121216171043.71084070@khamul.example.com> <20121217104621.735bf43a@khamul.example.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> <50D957F0.1060406@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:56:38 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? -> what was wron with SysVInit? From: Joshua Murphy To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b3d078ac-9aff-4bed-9d66-63d8f82e116a X-Archives-Hash: 70caa3cf6789c580287f4cce6ac9776d On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > [ snip ] > * Really simple service unit files: The service unit files are really > small, really simple, really easy to understand/modify. Compare the 9 > lines of sshd.service: > > $ cat /etc/systemd/system/sshd.service > [Unit] > Description=3DSSH Secure Shell Service > After=3Dsyslog.target > > [Service] > ExecStart=3D/usr/sbin/sshd -D > > [Install] > WantedBy=3Dmulti-user.target > > with the 84 of /etc/init.d/sshd (80 without comments). > [snip] > > Hope it helps. > > Regards. > -- > 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 > I've not yet made the leap, as the benefit of faster boot really doesn't affect me between systems that're always on and laptops that typically spend 75% of their time asleep, rather than ever getting turned off, so I'm in no position to speak for or against the whole of systemd's changes... but one issue I've had with the claimed benefits is the reduction in size compared to startup scripts like /etc/init.d/sshd ... based on that service declaration above, it's a horribly unfair comparison. /etc/init.d/sshd is doing a lot more than simply starting/stopping the service and dropping all of that functionality, then claiming "these few lines serve the same purpose" isn't an equal comparison. It would still be a (notable, at that) drop in size if the shell script was redone to provide exactly the same set of features, then compared, but that size difference wouldn't have the same shock value as the comparison against 80+ lines. The argument that those functions should be handled by the service rather than the service handler is for another day, 'course. I'll eventually get around to switching to play with systemd, at the very least to learn its quirks enough to work with it, and it's very helpful to have a clearly stated set of _favorable_ comments on it (compared to the majority of less favorable commentary) to look forward to, so don't take my having one issue with the list as anything against either the list as a whole or your effort in putting all that together, as both are very much appreciated. Happy holidays. --=20 Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy