On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:27:37 +0200 > Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > >> Rich Freeman wrote:
[snip] >> > Systemd isn't a like-for-like replacement for traditional inits. >> > It aims to be much more, so this is a bit of an apples-to-oranges >> > comparison. >> >> Yes, it is much more, which is a very nice thing on the systems >> it supports. I believe systemd is not usuable at all outside Linux >> and will not likely ever be, so for prefix there will anyway always >> be systemd alternatives in Gentoo! And on those systems the service >> files should never be installed. > > Considering that systemd unit files are sometimes shipped with upstream > packages, and often they are practically equivalent to openrc init > scripts, I'd rather see openrc supporting that file format > as an extension and using it instead of duplicating the same thing > in init.d scripts. > > And yes, that means that people masking service files shoot themselves > in the foot. > > Also, if I had more time (or support), I'd probably start working > on a systemd-compatible init system with a more portable design. I would find this very interesting. I doubt I could find time for much active contribution, unfortunately, but I'd help where I could. > >> > Again, I'm not sure that it HAS to work the way it does >> >> I would say that it does, because it is required in order to >> accomplish what systemd wants to deliver. > > Not necessarily. You can move many 'extra' systemd features outside of > PID 1. For example, unit dependency trees are complex by definition > and practically not necessary for PID 1. > > In other words, it could be designed to move more complex (and thus > risky) tasks outside of PID 1. +1 -- :wq
