On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:35:55PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote > >> What we're talking about with systemd vs openrc, and things like ssh'd >> first-time initialization is all within the realm of responsibility of >> the packager. It's a shift in the way the distribution itself works. >> We're not talking about a scenario where you shunt things upstream, so >> the whole "your position would have rejected Linux" angle is a red >> herring. > > This is a frustrating game of whack-a-mole. Person A comes up with a > position, I rebut it, and then person B comes up with a different > position, and I have to rebut it.. There have been people in this > thread who have said that the program best knows what it needs, and > should handle its own initialization. That was what I was replying to. > I'll reply to your position now. > >> Why does that spawned process have to be sshd? Why can't it be some >> shell script which does the one-time checks, and then launches sshd >> itself? > > So instead of the initscript doing the checking+setup and launching > the service, it launches a a second script... which does the > checking+setup and launches the service <FACEPALM>. See my post with > the joke of digging a second hole to dump the dirt from the first hole > into. Instead of one script, we now have two scripts. This is *NOT* > simplification.
No. In a system V scenario, you'd probably just symlink to the genericized init script. In the systemd scenario, as I understand it, you have a configuration file (distinct from a script), and you'd include the path to the genericized init script there. What I'm talking about is an implementation of the adapter pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapter_pattern If there are going to be competing init systems (and there will be), and a service needs to be compatible with both (and there will be such services), then that's going to be the most elegant solution. > >> Why does that shell script need to be distributed as part of the >> init system's package, and not part of the package associated with >> the service? > > I don't understand what you're arguing here. *THE INITSCRIPT IS OWNED > BY THE SERVICE PACKAGE*, not by the init package. E.g. net-misc/openssh, > not sys-apps/openrc. > > waltdnes@d530 ~ $ equery b /etc/init.d/sshd > * Searching for /etc/init.d/sshd ... > net-misc/openssh-5.8_p1-r1 (/etc/init.d/sshd) Sure. And that's what I was arguing. Though by the sound of it, there's stuffed in the openrc package which doesn't need to be there, and a blog post flameeyes posted today suggests the systemd package is intended to absorb the hardware database. ( http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2012/03/refreshing-a-4-years-old-problem ) > >> Having the shell script be part of the package associated with the >> service keeps bugs related to that script associated with that >> package. > > That's the way it is right now. See above. And that's the way it should be. > >> At least, that's the way I see it. Any issue of compatibility between >> the two can be addressed by the service's package manager, either by >> adaption via that script, or by expressing an explicit dependency on >> one init architecture or another. > > My point in this whole argument is that there is some checking and > setup that has to be done before launch. Therefore shuffling off some > or all of the shellscript code to another script is a pointless "shell > game" (sorry) that adds no value. See reference to the adapter pattern above. Systemd has its merits in its capabilities. System V init has merits in that it's far more portable. Open source software which operates as a system service will need to support both. There are, of course, things I loathe. I loathe the apparent mindset behind systemd and behind udev, wherein all things belong as part of a monolithic system. That runs counter to principles of modular design, portability and even systemic stability in changing things. I loathe the desire to lunge forward without working out a transition plan, or even having the appearance of interest in one. And I loathe the terrible PR. -- :wq
