Re: A few observations about systemd

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:48:47 +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote: >If I want „cool” Linux things, then I don’t use a distribution >which is proud to be a cross-platform distribution. Amen. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 13:48 +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 01:24:40PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >When it starts to be the case because kFreeBSD doesn’t have a modern > >init system available, will you reconsider? > > If I don’t want to support it, I will reconsider, i

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mar 15, Martin Wuertele wrote: > Let me quote section 4 first sentence of the social contract: "We will > be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community.". This is correct, and it is why we should work to solve the problems of the platform which has over 1000 times more

Re: A few observations about systemd

* Marco d'Itri [2012-03-15 14:11]: > On Mar 15, Stephan Seitz wrote: > > > Okay, I am not a DD, > This pretty much explains why you are not qualified to partecipate to > this discussion. Let me quote section 4 first sentence of the social contract: "We will be guided by the needs of our users

Re: A few observations about systemd

On 03/15/2012 01:24 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 15 mars 2012 à 12:48 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : >> I maintain multiple daemon packages in Debian and was never forced to >> do double work. > > Good for you. But do not assume this is everyone’s case. > > When it starts to be the case b

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 02:10:29PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Mar 15, Stephan Seitz wrote: Okay, I am not a DD, This pretty much explains why you are not qualified to partecipate to this discussion. You do not seem to be interested in having users, do you? How far will you come without t

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mar 15, Stephan Seitz wrote: > Okay, I am not a DD, This pretty much explains why you are not qualified to partecipate to this discussion. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 01:24:40PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: When it starts to be the case because kFreeBSD doesn’t have a modern init system available, will you reconsider? If I don’t want to support it, I will reconsider, if I will stay in Debian, because Debian is *not* a Linux-only di

Re: A few observations about systemd

Le jeudi 15 mars 2012 à 12:48 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : > I maintain multiple daemon packages in Debian and was never forced to > do double work. Good for you. But do not assume this is everyone’s case. When it starts to be the case because kFreeBSD doesn’t have a modern init system available,

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:59:02 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: >Le lundi 05 mars 2012 à 12:11 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : >> The migration to udev didn't cause double work for daemon maintainers. > >Excuse me? > >Having to support both udev and HAL just for the sake of Hurd and >kFreeBSD *is* some a

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:57:45 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: >Le mercredi 07 mars 2012 à 07:43 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : >> The differences between systemd and openssh are that core OpenSSH does >> not work on "our" main architecture, and that there is an active >> non-Debian upstream for Portab

Re: A few observations about systemd

Le lundi 05 mars 2012 à 12:11 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : > The migration to udev didn't cause double work for daemon maintainers. Excuse me? Having to support both udev and HAL just for the sake of Hurd and kFreeBSD *is* some additional work for many packages. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette

Re: A few observations about systemd

Le mercredi 07 mars 2012 à 07:43 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : > The differences between systemd and openssh are that core OpenSSH does > not work on "our" main architecture, and that there is an active > non-Debian upstream for Portable OpenSSH. If there were something like > "portable systemd", I

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:01:10 +, Jon Dowland wrote: >Are we asking different standards from systemd >than we expect from core openssh? The differences between systemd and openssh are that core OpenSSH does not work on "our" main architecture, and that there is an active non-Debian upstream for

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:08:51AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > I think the fundamental problem is having kFreeBSD in Debian. It's too > > much extra work and problems for limited benefit to a small number of > > people. Holding things hostage with "you have to make this work on > > kFreeBSD to

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 07:18:51PM +0100, Christoph Egger wrote: > > Uoti Urpala writes: > > I think it's quite arrogant of BSD users to expect others to work to > > support their systems. > > There's qute a difference between parts of debian expecting upstream to > do the work and upstream host

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:14:04 +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: >On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:12:32AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> There is a different between "I don't care about portability" and "I >> won't accept any patches that are only useful on non-Linux platforms". > >> The former could be remedied by

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:12:32AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > There is a different between "I don't care about portability" and "I > won't accept any patches that are only useful on non-Linux platforms". > The former could be remedied by submitting documented and maintained > patches, which saves

Re: A few observations about systemd

Is it possible to implement the linux-only feathers that systemd needs? On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, David Weinehall wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:00:07PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > [snip] >> The main question is: For who's interest should Debian exist, the >> upstream authors, the D

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:00:07PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: [snip] > The main question is: For who's interest should Debian exist, the > upstream authors, the Debian maintainers or the users? My vote is on the > latter :) I think few argue against Debian being for the users. But the question

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:09:36 +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote: >Guillem Jover wrote: >> While upstreams are obviously entitled to not care at *all* about >> portability for their pet projects (at the risk of being either ignored >> or forked, I guess), trying to push so hard for the adoption of those >> p

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Feb 26, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > By that reasonsing we should not support bsd, hurd, mips, arm, ppc, > ia64, s390 either. Hell lets drop i386 too. Indeed. The reason we support niche architectures and toy ports is that some people are interested in doing the work, and that these do not

Re: A few observations about systemd

Uoti Urpala writes: > I think it's quite arrogant of BSD users to expect others to work to > support their systems. There's qute a difference between parts of debian expecting upstream to do the work and upstream hostily denying existing patches I'd say Regards Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRI

Re: A few observations about systemd

Uoti Urpala writes: > Bernhard R. Link wrote: >> Imagine how long amd64 would have taken, if people had not had years >> to fix all those 64 bit bugs on alpha first (Which never really got >> a mainstream architecture and where it was used was quite server-only. >> Who would have guessed that fix

Re: A few observations about systemd

Bernhard R. Link wrote: > While there might be some problems originating from some architecture, > but most problems you will see and people claim to be "problems specific > to fringe architectures" are actual bugs in the program you just do not > *yet* see on your usual pet architectures. And some

Re: A few observations about systemd

* Uoti Urpala [120226 20:20]: > If someone complained about a nontrivial s390-specific problem in a > context where I was upstream, I'd likely ignore him. In the Debian > context, people other than porters should not be obligated to do > significant work to resolve problems specific to fringe arch

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Svante Signell wrote: > On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 21:03 +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote: >> On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 17:36 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> > Uoti Urpala writes: > >> I don't think it's an accident that this discussion came up in >> the context of kFreeBSD.

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 21:03 +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote: > On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 17:36 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Uoti Urpala writes: > I don't think it's an accident that this discussion came up in > the context of kFreeBSD. Extra hardware architectures typically require > a lot less ef

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 17:36 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Uoti Urpala writes: > > > I think it's quite arrogant of BSD users to expect others to work to > > support their systems. The BSD userbase is small enough that most > > projects have alternative things to work on that help a lot mor

Re: A few observations about systemd

Uoti Urpala writes: > I think it's quite arrogant of BSD users to expect others to work to > support their systems. The BSD userbase is small enough that most > projects have alternative things to work on that help a lot more people > than BSD support would. Trying to support extra platforms the

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 21:09 +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote: > Guillem Jover wrote: ... > I think it's quite arrogant of BSD users to expect others to work to > support their systems. The BSD userbase is small enough that most > projects have alternative things to work on that help a lot more people > tha

Re: A few observations about systemd

Guillem Jover wrote: > On the "other kernels lack of features" I'll just point to the > “Functionality Equivalence” section in the Porting Guidelines draft I've > been preparing at . > Most of the features listed as required for systemd are eith

Re: A few observations about systemd

[ Sending this late reply now, which I had around as a draft, but with the latest incarnation of this debate it's become relevant again. ] Hi! On the "other kernels lack of features" I'll just point to the “Functionality Equivalence” section in the Porting Guidelines draft I've been preparing a

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Friday, August 05, 2011 02:36:13 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 12:27:43AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > > > > If you do want it started, that means you need to install it first. > > > > > Then it mak

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 12:27:43AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > > > If you do want it started, that means you need to install it first. Then > > > > it makes very much sense it is started automatically. > > > Logical fallacy:

Re: A few observations about systemd

Lars Wirzenius writes: > Anyone wanting a change to status quo (easy-but-secure) should > probably make the tools to allow a sysadmin to switch to > secure-but-easy easily. A patch to update-rc.d to allow overriding My policy asks me what to do with new services: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/b

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > > If you do want it started, that means you need to install it first. Then > > > it makes very much sense it is started automatically. > > Logical fallacy: "run" implies "install", but "install" doesn't always > > mean "run". > Whi

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 11:52:22PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 07:35:49PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > If you do want it started, that means you need to install it first. Then > > it makes very much sense it is started automatically. > Logical fallacy: "run" impl

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 07:35:49PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > If you do want it started, that means you need to install it first. Then > it makes very much sense it is started automatically. Logical fallacy: "run" implies "install", but "install" doesn't always mean "run". -- WBR, wRAR sig

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 07:41:29AM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Hi, > > Le 03/08/11 17:23, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 03:17:51PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 08:27:04PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:38:43PM

Re: A few observations about systemd

[Satoru KURASHIKI] > I don't care either of which policy (daemons should start/stop as > its default), but It would be better that sysadmins are able to > choose that default (in global setting somewhere like init.conf), > and each package's /etc/default/* will override that. This sound like an i

Re: A few observations about systemd

hi, On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > When I install a package I want to actually use it. > A better security policy is to not install by default useless packages. There is a case which I want to install a package and other package will control their process lifecycle (i.e. p

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 00:30:48 + (UTC), Uoti Urpala wrote: >kFreeBSD support is useful for only few people kFreeBSD allows me to have ZFS with a Userland that I am familiar with. I'd happily keep this, even if it means not having systemd. Greetings Marc -- -

Re: A few observations about systemd

* Thibaut Paumard [2011-08-04 07:43]: > I don't agree. When I install Debian on a laptop or workstation, I only > want what I need, and most of the time I don't want a SSH or FTP server. > But the day I need it, I install it and I want to use it right away to > connect to my personal account. I d

Re: A few observations about systemd

Hi, Le 03/08/11 17:23, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 03:17:51PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 08:27:04PM +, Clint Adams wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:38:43PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: I would be glad if all services (at le

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 03:17:51PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 08:27:04PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:38:43PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > > I would be glad if all services (at least network-enabled or especially > > > insecure for

Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]"): > FWIW, I've gotten feedback from Samba upstream that the upstart job for smbd > in Ubuntu, which runs the daemon foregrounded, is concerning to them because > foreground mode hasn't

Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:45:51 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: [...] > There's also the matter that if your daemon is being run in the > foreground, other services depend on it, and you're not using socket > activation, there's ambiguity as to when the service is actually > "started". A racy startup is

Re: A few observations about systemd

On 2011-08-02, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Aug 02, Dmitry Nezhevenko wrote: >> Another example is dovecot-imapd. It's possible to use it in >> preauthenticated mode. In such case no system-wide daemon is required and >> mail client should just start imapd and talk with it using stdin/stdout. > Again

Re: A few observations about systemd

Ian Jackson chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Debian has a long history of trying to make it possible to use Debian > for as many purposes as we can, even when that means that the system > has to be more complicated, or even when it means Debian has to be > less perfectly suited to some particular

Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 07:14:31PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Marc Haber writes ("Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about > systemd]"): > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:55:58 +0100, Ian Jackson > > wrote: > > >No, I don't think so. If these external

Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]

Marc Haber writes ("Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]"): > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:55:58 +0100, Ian Jackson > wrote: > >No, I don't think so. If these external tools double fork then they > >are just wrong. > > Double Forking has

Re: [Lennart Poettering] Re: A few observations about systemd

Jon Dowland writes: > It completely predates Debian releasing non-Linux > kernels and is not mentioned in the social contract. That some > people feel it justifies (or even mandates) non-Linux kernels in > Debian is a retcon. pf, ZFS; these are valid reasons stated that > support kFreeBSD. "I i

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Aug 02, Dmitry Nezhevenko wrote: > What is "use"? The maintainers decides what are the prevalent use cases of the package and try to use defaults which are appropriate for the largest number of users. > For example rsync package provides both "rsync" client and > rsync daemon. Both cases are

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 12:14:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > Making the "do not start by default" policy default for the distro should > > improve out-of-box security. > When I install a package I want to actually use it. > A better security policy is to not install by default useless packages

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 08:37:03AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > Or have a firewall configured. A (properly configured) firewall¹ might prevent *inbound* service abuse, but there's always a potential for a mis- or un-configured service to cause problems on a network (*outbound* service abuse²): a

Re: A few observations about systemd

OoO Pendant le temps de midi du lundi 01 août 2011, vers 12:47, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) disait : >> If a package with the default config listens on external ifaces or does >> other potentially insecure things (or maybe changes the system state in >> some other undesirable way), the a

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 05:59:45PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > > I would be glad if all services (at least network-enabled or especially > > > > insecure for other reasons) didn't start by default. > > > Maybe everyone would be happy if there were a central place to set > > > the administra

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 17:14 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 08:27:04PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > > > I would be glad if all services (at least network-enabled or especially > > > insecure for other reasons) didn't start by default. > > Maybe everyone would be happy if t

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 16:49 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:52:13PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > even init.d has a documented (and what's > > > more, actually *working*) implementation of not starting daemons at > > > boot. It's called 'remove the *** symlink

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 08:27:04PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > > I would be glad if all services (at least network-enabled or especially > > insecure for other reasons) didn't start by default. > Maybe everyone would be happy if there were a central place to set > the administrator's preferred poli

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Aug 01, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > If a package with the default config listens on external ifaces or does > other potentially insecure things (or maybe changes the system state in > some other undesirable way), the administrator may want to change its > config before the first start. A packa

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:52:13PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > even init.d has a documented (and what's > > more, actually *working*) implementation of not starting daemons at > > boot. It's called 'remove the *** symlink'. > If you remove them, they'll be recreated by the next upgrade; th

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 12:14:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > > I would be glad if all services (at least network-enabled or especially > > > > insecure for other reasons) didn't start by default. > > > Maybe everyone would be happy if there were a central place to set > > > the administrator

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Aug 01, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 08:27:04PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:38:43PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > > I would be glad if all services (at least network-enabled or especially > > > insecure for other reasons) didn't start

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 08:27:04PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:38:43PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > I would be glad if all services (at least network-enabled or especially > > insecure for other reasons) didn't start by default. > Maybe everyone would be happy if

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:38:43PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > I would be glad if all services (at least network-enabled or especially > insecure for other reasons) didn't start by default. Maybe everyone would be happy if there were a central place to set the administrator's preferred poli

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:20:45PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > >That this is not particularly useful is not specific to any init > > >implementation. I hate 'ENABLED=' configuration options with a passion. > > >They do not make *any* sense, even init.d has a documented (and what's > > They do

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:04:21PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Having said that, I do agree with you that it could benefit from either > better documentation, or a command for system admins to use which would > enable or disable initscripts. RedHat (and similars) have 'chkconfig' > which does t

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:26:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > Do we actually have a standardised interface that can disable a service > and then reenable it so that it is in exactly the same state as before > it was disabled, without requiring black magic and/or prior knowledge > of the correct ru

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:41:59AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] 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 scrip

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:52:13PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 at 21:59:40 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > even init.d has a documented (and what's > > more, actually *working*) implementation of not starting daemons at > > boot. It's called 'remove the *** symlink'. >

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:09:02 -0300, Fernando Lemos > wrote: >>The thing you don't seem to get is that systemd uses "init files" > > No need to be rude and to assume stupidity on the other side when one > is just asking innocent questions about

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:09:02 -0300, Fernando Lemos wrote: >The thing you don't seem to get is that systemd uses "init files" No need to be rude and to assume stupidity on the other side when one is just asking innocent questions about what to expect in the next years. You're not making any frien

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:41:36AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Simon McVittie (s...@debian.org) [110724 23:52]: > > On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 at 21:59:40 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > even init.d has a documented (and what's > > > more, actually *working*) implementation of not starting daemons

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:16:15PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote: > Editing /etc/runlevel.conf is easy as well. But I still prefer the > good old „exit 0” version. And talking with other people, this seems > to be far easier to remember if they want to revert the change. The problem with this is that

Re: A few observations about systemd

* Simon McVittie (s...@debian.org) [110724 23:52]: > On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 at 21:59:40 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > even init.d has a documented (and what's > > more, actually *working*) implementation of not starting daemons at > > boot. It's called 'remove the *** symlink'. > > If you rem

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 22:44:55 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: [...] > Please don't get me wrong: I like the ideas behind systemd, but I need > some more input to decide whether it's actually as flexible as an init > script. IMHO the flexibility of init scripts was often abused to do things which sho

Re: A few observations about systemd

]] 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

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 at 21:59:40 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > even init.d has a documented (and what's > more, actually *working*) implementation of not starting daemons at > boot. It's called 'remove the *** symlink'. If you remove them, they'll be recreated by the next upgrade; the right w

Re: A few observations about systemd

Iustin Pop writes: > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 01:17:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> I don't get that impression. Rather, I think both systemd and upstart >> want to significantly reduce the involvement of shell scripts in the >> boot process for the same reason that I'd love to have the time t

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 01:17:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Wouter Verhelst writes: > > > No. systemd wants to throw out init scripts, because they are shell > > scripts, and Shell Scripts Are Bad!!!1!! oh noes. > > I don't get that impression. Rather, I think both systemd and upstart > wan

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:16:15PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote: > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:59:40PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >That this is not particularly useful is not specific to any init > >implementation. I hate 'ENABLED=' configuration options with a passion. > >They do not make *any*

Re: A few observations about systemd

Wouter Verhelst writes: > No. systemd wants to throw out init scripts, because they are shell > scripts, and Shell Scripts Are Bad!!!1!! oh noes. I don't get that impression. Rather, I think both systemd and upstart want to significantly reduce the involvement of shell scripts in the boot proce

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:59:40PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: That this is not particularly useful is not specific to any init implementation. I hate 'ENABLED=' configuration options with a passion. They do not make *any* sense, even init.d has a documented (and what's They do in packages th

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 01:09:02PM -0300, Fernando Lemos wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Marc Haber > wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:12:13 -0300, Fernando Lemos > > wrote: > >>A more realistic option would be launching a program (or script) which > >>would read a configuration file

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 05:09:11PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > A lot of those /etc/default files have a ENABLED=YES flags, which are not > particularly useful with systemd, as systemd provides proper mechanisms to > enable/disable services in a convenient way. That this is not particularly usefu

Re: A few observations about systemd

]] Stephan Seitz Hi, | I don’t know if files in /etc/default are Debian specific ones, but | sometimes you need to change start parameters of the daemon. One | example is sasldauth. If you have postfix in a chroot environemnt | (standard Debian), you need to change the parameter for the named |

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Stephan Seitz wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 05:09:11PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: >>> >>> Configuration file for the daemon is /etc/default/rsyslog: >> >> The canonical configuration file for the rsyslog daemon is >> /etc/rsyslog.conf. > > Yes, but it doesn’t a

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 05:09:11PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Configuration file for the daemon is /etc/default/rsyslog: The canonical configuration file for the rsyslog daemon is /etc/rsyslog.conf. Yes, but it doesn’t allow you to change start options of the daemon itself. include that via

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:12:13 -0300, Fernando Lemos > wrote: >>A more realistic option would be launching a program (or script) which >>would read a configuration file (containing whatever >>/etc/default/exim4 contains nowadays) and launch the

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:48:43 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >Another would be to ship three systemd units, one being «smtp», one >being «queue runner» a third being «smtp+queue runner» or just generate >the .service file dynamically based on what the admin configures through >debconf. The admin cu

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:12:13 -0300, Fernando Lemos wrote: >I believe the systemd way to handle this would be moving the logic >that automatically configures the daemon with flags or additional >instances out of the init script. In the specific case you mention, >perhaps this functionality should h

Re: A few observations about systemd

Le vendredi 22 juillet 2011 à 11:32 +0200, Stephan Seitz a écrit : > So let systemd be part of Debian, but not as default init system. Maybe > it can be used in about five years when all third party software is > supporting it. Seriously, I suggest that you document yourself instead of writing

Re: A few observations about systemd

Guus Sliepen writes: > I would hardly call that a suitable comparison. How hard can it be to > support both sysvinit and systemd? For everything in Debian? Unless you're willing to write init scripts and cripple systemd by making it use init scripts, it's a huge pain, since you have to maintain

Re: A few observations about systemd

Am 22.07.2011 16:59, schrieb Stephan Seitz: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:49:28PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: >> The configuration file for rsyslog is /etc/rsyslog.conf resp. >> /etc/rsyslog.d > > Configuration file for the daemon is /etc/default/rsyslog: The canonical configuration file for the

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:49:28PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: The configuration file for rsyslog is /etc/rsyslog.conf resp. /etc/rsyslog.d Configuration file for the daemon is /etc/default/rsyslog: # Options for rsyslogd # -m 0 disables ‚MARK’ messages (deprecated, only used in compat mode #

Re: A few observations about systemd

Am 22.07.2011 16:38, schrieb Stephan Seitz: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:24:33PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: >> We already have systemd in unstable (and soon testing) and even >> a handful of packages shipping native systemd service files. The most >> prominent ones are probably rsyslog, dbus, ud

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:24:33PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: We already have systemd in unstable (and soon testing) and even a handful of packages shipping native systemd service files. The most prominent ones are probably rsyslog, dbus, udev and network-manager. Indeed, rsyslog has a servic

Re: A few observations about systemd

Am 22.07.2011 15:53, schrieb Stephan Seitz: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 02:59:09PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> (Ignoring the kFreeBSD side of things for a bit): Why? As others have >> pointed out, systemd uses sysvinit scripts just fine. > > Well, then why don’t we put systemd in testing as al

  1   2   3   4   >