On 02/21/2012 11:22 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:28:55PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >>> What do you know of the upstart design that makes you think systemd's design >>> is better? The above could be a paraphrase of Lennart's blog, for all it >>> says about the upstart design. > >> Socket-based activation. > > upstart-socket-bridge(8) > upstart-socket-bridge(8) > > NAME > upstart-socket-bridge - Bridge between Upstart and sockets > > DESCRIPTION > The upstart-socket-bridge queries the Upstart init(8) daemon for all > job configurations which start on or stop on the socket event. It then > waits for an incoming connection on each specified socket(7) and when > detected emits the socket event (socket-event (7)), setting a number of > environment variables for the job to query. > > Upstart supports socket-based activation just fine. However, there appear > to be a grand total of 0 packages in Ubuntu currently making use of this, in > part because most services require *modifications to upstream code* to > support socket-based activation.
Is that compatible to what systemd requires? Various projects start supporting systemd, so enabling such a feature for upstart would be easier if the systemd stuff is implemented already. > [...] -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- 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/4f47631b.6090...@bzed.de
