On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 at 10:30:15 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > I don't suppose it would be worth maintaining a patch-set in Debian to support > other OSs: In a hypothetical future where systemd was the default init system > for Debian, it's probably less work to support multiple init systems and let > K*BSD/Hurd/*[2] pick another.
I agree with Juliusz' observation that systemd's declarative service definitions seem sane, and are a reasonable thing to convert into other inits' native formats (potentially including sysvinit shell scripts) if required. I suspect that the shortest path from here to "kFreeBSD can run systemd units" would be to write one or both of: * a tool that takes a large subset of systemd unit (service) syntax as input, and outputs a sysvinit shell script that uses start-stop-daemon (and/or a new C helper that is run like s-s-d and does some of the same things as systemd) * a tool that takes the same command-line parameters as a sysvinit script and implements them by parsing and running a systemd unit (which would result in sysvinit scripts that consist of LSB headers, plus one line similar to "exec not-really-systemd apache2.service "$@") (In fact, I wonder whether converting daemons' sysvinit scripts into a declarative format, then running them through a similar tool, would in fact give us more reliable sysvinit shell scripts than we currently have, even without replacing sysvinit :-) S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110718094921.gb20...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk