Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > So overall my conclusions at this level are:
> * socket activation is an attractive implementation target for an > upstream daemon author. > * upstart's SIGSTOP protocol is an attractive implementation target > for an upstream daemon author. > * systemd's readiness protocol is an unattractive implementation > target for an upstream daemon author. I think this is an important > weakness, if it remains unaddressed. I've indicated my disagreement with the last point elsewhere, but I wanted to note that I agree with both of the first points. I have conceptual problems with upstart's synchronization protocol, but it's certainly easy to implement (in the form of a new flag) and test. For comparison purposes, the *total* burden, from my upstream perspective, of the two options was: * systemd: 14 lines (8 lines of code, 6 lines of build system) * upstart: 12 lines (6 lines of code, 6 lines of documentation) Since upstart synchronization required adding a new command-line flag, it needed documentation of the new flag; systemd's synchronization support didn't strike me as something that required documentation beyond a note that it was supported. Both of these are effectively trivial, and my current intention is to add support for both protocols to the daemons that I maintain. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org