I'll start answering from the last point since it explains the remaining answers. Sorry for the shuffle.
On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:41:27 +0200 Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files > > In the end initscripts are usually distribution dependent since they are > an integration step. Integration? What kind of integration? The kind of integration which results in various apps behaving differently depending on the patch set used by distro? The kind of integration which makes performing *simple* administrative tasks completely distro-dependant? Seriously, I don't remember anymore how to enable services on openrc. And I don't want to get back to the point when approach a computer with Arch required me to find out how the necessary tools are named there. That said, Gentoo init.d scripts are an aberration. Either they resemble poor hacks to change application behavior, provide additional configuration or setup. Isn't init script supposed to *start* an application? When init scripts start to source additional code from external files, poorly parse configuration files and reset databases, I believe we reached the point of 'done seriously wrong'. And someone mentioned that automatic restart of service is dangerous... > What if openrc/upstart/runit devs start harassing upstream in the same way? > > Strategically is great, but isn't exactly something nice to do. > > Probably people caring about alternatives should start bothering > upstreams likewise and we'll see how it goes. Strategically? So we're now at war? Yes, I've noticed the few people fancying a pile of hacks complaining about the 'so-wrong' systemd breaking the unwritten rules of having a distro-specific pile of hacks and trying to improve something for the sake of uniformity. The point is that openrc/upstart/runit devs never cared enough. Maybe they fancied their total control over init scripts or didn't feel influential enough, I don't know. Now that we have something that actually was designed with that point in consideration, we have crybabies shouting 'but please use my init.d instead! it's so much better because i used it'. The major difference would be that systemd is something new, not just the pile of hacks that has grown a lot of functionality over time. > I'm sure that *everybody* would be delighted to provide those 4-5 > different initscripts because one distribution or the other wants others > do the work for them... Does it really? I more feel like it specifically doesn't want others to touch their precious init scripts. > I'm saying again that trying to get a good intermediate representation > and have a generator (eselect based maybe) provide the init-specific > file would be much better. Did you see how systemd unit files look like? What kind of intermediate representation do you want? I don't expect service descriptions to go much simpler than this. Of course, you could just mangle the names, change the format. Do that for the sake of making things harder for others. Show how offended you are by others not wanting your fancy init.d! And eselect, of course. Another distro-specific pile of hacks which doesn't do anything specific. I wonder if we will have to wait for Fedora to replace it. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
