Ian Jackson chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> But I don't think it is a good idea to adopt a complicated workaround
> (which is essentially what the cgroups approach is), to get proper
> daemon supervision, when we can simply fix the root cause.
This is a bit like saying that there's no need for
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Making daemons compatible with systemd"):
> I'm looking forward to your patches for the proprietary HP and Dell
> daemons that are used for monitoring the health of various hardware
> components.
Those daemons can continue to be started and
]] Ian Jackson
| It is much better to modify the few upstream daemons which would need
| patching, than to add all of this extra machinery to support what
| seems to me to be a design whose entire purpose is to workaround a
| to-my-mind-broken interface paradigm (daemon(3)) invented decades ago.
Juliusz Chroboczek writes ("Making daemons compatible with systemd [was:
Minimal init]"):
> > From what I've seen in Lennart's posts, adding systemd support doesn't
> > seem to be too complicated.
>
> No. No changes at all are necessary to be compatible with systemd.
> This is a very impressive
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> From what I've seen in Lennart's posts, adding systemd support doesn't
>> seem to be too complicated.
>
> No. No changes at all are necessary to be compatible with systemd.
> This is a very impressive feature of systemd; at the same ti
5 matches
Mail list logo
