]] Wouter Verhelst Hi Wouter,
| At any rate, by not wanting to do scripts, you're making life harder for | yourself, since now you suddenly have to implement everything what | people have trivially done in shell scripts for years in C. Writing | flawless C isn't exactly easy either[1], and even if systemd's author is | a perfect coder (which he isn't, since perfection does not exist), | there's going to be a need to have some other people write some systemd | module at some point in the future, since 'plain' systemd doesn't do | what their software requires, or what their corporate environment likes, | or whatever, and they're going to make mistakes. There's not such thing as a systemd module. (I assume you're not talking about the systemd units which is the collective name for mounts, services and so on.) | And as a result, rather than have an initscript that does the | equivalent of "killall -KILL -1", you're going to have someone | implement socket enablement (or whatever it's called) incorrectly, | thereby creating a remotely exploitable buffer overflow. If you need socket activation, you obviously have to write the code to do so. There is nothing in systemd itself that requires you to use socket activation unless it actually gains you something. I have no idea why you are confusing the idea of stopping a service using (or doing a reload) using killall and socket activation, unless you're just doing this to rant, though. Please grab me here at debconf (or send email) if you're interested in having a discussion about it. Cheers, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r55fz4g8....@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
