Hello, Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: > > [...] > >>> I'm not sure. The beauty of Shepherd, in my eyes, when compared to >>> other init systems, is that it is lean and clean. Leveraging what's >>> already out there (and part of GNU) seems an obvious path to me, as it: >>> >>> 1. Means less code to write, document and maintain. >>> 2. Creates more cohesion between various components of the GNU project. >> >> Heheh, Guix was started to address #2 actually. Today, I think #2 is >> okay but should not be an obstacle. > > I personally still think the idea is more than "okay"; I see value in > it; one of the obvious benefits is documentation; most GNU packages come > with Texinfo documentation, which makes for a nice, integrated > experience. I also think that as the system becomes more established > and integrate more of GNU, more GNU packages maintainers may be > interested in joining and contributing (reaching some critical mass). Heheh. :-) >> As for #1, sure, but Shepherd will need to grow a proper event loop >> anyway, so socket activation won’t make much of a difference. > > If we keep it dumb and use inetd, it wouldn't, right? It will get that, independent of socket activation. > From what I understand, systemd uses socket activation as a means to > chain events, while inetd is typically used to delay a service > starting to save on resources such as RAM (for services seldom used). > Is my primitive understanding about right? Yes. In most cases, it’s about starting services lazily (much like the Hurd’s passive translators, too.) Thanks, Ludo’.
