Re: On init in *Debian*
On 21/03/12 16:52, YunQiang Su wrote: It' said that the 2 main advantage of systemd are parallel and much simpler configuration file. And the third advantage of it, is that upstream people is starting to ship systemd unit files. Is it possible to implement an init system for kFreeBSD and Hurd, which init system support the configuration file format, while doesn't support parallel. Then for maintainer of packages with service, she/he can maintain only one configuration file, and it works on both kFreeBSD/Hurd and Linux. I believe that a better solution is the GSoC project proposed by Tollef http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00581.html http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2012/Projects#SysV-init_file_creator_from_systemd_service_files We can add a hook on dpkg to automatically convert systemd unit files to old-good sysvinit scripts when systemd is not installed on the system. -- ~~~ Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez http://neutrino.es Igalia - Free Software Engineeringhttp://www.igalia.com ~~~ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: On init in *Debian*
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 02:18:17PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: On 21/03/12 16:52, YunQiang Su wrote: It' said that the 2 main advantage of systemd are parallel and much simpler configuration file. And the third advantage of it, is that upstream people is starting to ship systemd unit files. Is it possible to implement an init system for kFreeBSD and Hurd, which init system support the configuration file format, while doesn't support parallel. Then for maintainer of packages with service, she/he can maintain only one configuration file, and it works on both kFreeBSD/Hurd and Linux. I believe that a better solution is the GSoC project proposed by Tollef http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00581.html http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2012/Projects#SysV-init_file_creator_from_systemd_service_files We can add a hook on dpkg to automatically convert systemd unit files to old-good sysvinit scripts when systemd is not installed on the system. It'd be safer to always run it, since the user might choose to uninstall systemd, or temporarily disable it, or... Well, you get the idea. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall t...@debian.org /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- 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/20120402125015.gj17...@suiko.acc.umu.se
Re: On init in *Debian*
2012/4/2 Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com And the third advantage of it, is that upstream people is starting to ship systemd unit files. It is not advantage. it is crap. I believe no one can write and support init/systemd/whatsoever scripts sutable for many distributions and their versions. All these scripts, specs and even ./debian dir is just annoying garbage.
Re: On init in *Debian*
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:14:25PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote: And the third advantage of it, is that upstream people is starting to ship systemd unit files. It is not advantage. it is crap. I believe no one can write and support init/systemd/whatsoever scripts sutable for many distributions and their versions. That's right, nobody can write initscripts for all distros because they are incompatible. Isn't this problem solved by systemd? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On init in *Debian*
Andrey Rahmatullin, le Mon 02 Apr 2012 19:21:59 +0600, a écrit : On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:14:25PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote: And the third advantage of it, is that upstream people is starting to ship systemd unit files. It is not advantage. it is crap. I believe no one can write and support init/systemd/whatsoever scripts sutable for many distributions and their versions. That's right, nobody can write initscripts for all distros because they are incompatible. Isn't this problem solved by systemd? No, it was mentioned previously that systemd does not aim at being a (linux distro) standard. Samuel -- 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/20120402132321.gs7...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Re: On init in *Debian*
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes: Andrey Rahmatullin, le Mon 02 Apr 2012 19:21:59 +0600, a écrit : That's right, nobody can write initscripts for all distros because they are incompatible. Isn't this problem solved by systemd? No, it was mentioned previously that systemd does not aim at being a (linux distro) standard. It was mentioned previously by me that I wasn't sure that this was the case, and someone who follows systemd development more closely than I do said that they felt it was the case. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/87fwcm84m1@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: On init in *Debian*
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 03:23:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: And the third advantage of it, is that upstream people is starting to ship systemd unit files. It is not advantage. it is crap. I believe no one can write and support init/systemd/whatsoever scripts sutable for many distributions and their versions. That's right, nobody can write initscripts for all distros because they are incompatible. Isn't this problem solved by systemd? No, it was mentioned previously that systemd does not aim at being a (linux distro) standard. Is being a (linux distro) standard the same as being the default /sbin/init in all distros? If yes, I don't see how is it relevant here. What I meant is: it is a common knowledge that you need to write an initscript for each specific distro even though most of them use sysvinit, but does this apply to systemd unit files too? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On init in *Debian*
On 02/04/12 18:03, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: What I meant is: it is a common knowledge that you need to write an initscript for each specific distro even though most of them use sysvinit, but does this apply to systemd unit files too? dbus has a different init script for each distro, but one (upstream-supplied) systemd unit is shared between at least Fedora and Debian. I believe this is typically true in other projects. Most of the differences between Fedora and Debian init scripts aren't visible in a systemd unit, because they're things like whether to use daemon(1) or start-stop-daemon or something else, which systemd sidesteps by not needing either. 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/4f79e6a4.9090...@debian.org
Re: On init in *Debian*
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 06:49:24PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: On 02/04/12 18:03, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: What I meant is: it is a common knowledge that you need to write an initscript for each specific distro even though most of them use sysvinit, but does this apply to systemd unit files too? dbus has a different init script for each distro, but one (upstream-supplied) systemd unit is shared between at least Fedora and Debian. I believe this is typically true in other projects. Most of the differences between Fedora and Debian init scripts aren't visible in a systemd unit, because they're things like whether to use daemon(1) or start-stop-daemon or something else, which systemd sidesteps by not needing either. But it's a real stretch to say that providing those systemd units upstream makes a serious difference in maintenance overhead for distros. Either systemd units, like upstart jobs, are easy to write once and require minimal ongoing maintenance; or they aren't and that's a pretty big strike against systemd. Furthermore, the kinds of things that *will* require changes to job/unit files - such as dependency changes - are very likely to be driven by distros in response to local integration needs. So I don't buy the claims that systemd units upstream are somehow a significant advantage of systemd over upstart. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- 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/20120402182031.gb11...@virgil.dodds.net
Re: On init in *Debian*
]] Samuel Thibault Andrey Rahmatullin, le Mon 02 Apr 2012 19:21:59 +0600, a écrit : On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:14:25PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote: And the third advantage of it, is that upstream people is starting to ship systemd unit files. It is not advantage. it is crap. I believe no one can write and support init/systemd/whatsoever scripts sutable for many distributions and their versions. That's right, nobody can write initscripts for all distros because they are incompatible. Isn't this problem solved by systemd? No, it was mentioned previously that systemd does not aim at being a (linux distro) standard. Depending on what you mean by «being a (linux distro) standard», I think you're misunderstanding what at least I meant, and quite possibly what Russ Allbery meant too. (Russ, please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth.) Russ Allbery wrote: The maintenance of systemd is actually quite the opposite of a standard. It's focused on being clean, supportable, and fully integrated with Linux capabilities, *not* to solving everyone's use case, even to the detriment of being universal. This is about how systemd is maintained, not whether it is (or can be) a standard tool. systemd is not maintained by a standards committee. It's not driven by people sitting down, discussing the problem it's trying to solve, thinking about all the edge cases and then writing a spec and documentation for what one has thought about. systemd is not written to be interoperable with other init implementations or a tool which you can easily switch to and away from it. (You can do that if you don't use most of systemd's features, but if you commit to using systemd units, there's no other init system that currently understands them, for instance.) This does not mean systemd can't be a standard tool, it just means it's by itself not a standard in the sense the the FHS, the LSB or the XDG specs are standards. From talking with upstream, it's quite obvious that they want systemd to be the standard init on Linux systems. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87398masdf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in *Debian*
]] Andrey Rahmatullin What I meant is: it is a common knowledge that you need to write an initscript for each specific distro even though most of them use sysvinit, but does this apply to systemd unit files too? It's an explicit goal from systemd upstream that it should be possible to use the same unit files across distributions. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87y5qe9dqs@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in Debian
Hi, On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote: Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: I’ve not seen many people interested specifically in upstart in this discussion, apart from Canonical employees. For the record, I'm interested specifically in upstart because I think that alignment with Ubuntu is a major win for Debian in terms of the ecosystem and aiding our already extensive sharing of packages. I don't consider that benefit to be overwhelming, and I could be convinced that systemd is the way to go even if it doesn't give us that if it's sufficiently technically better. But I think it's an important thing to keep in mind. joke But isn't Ubuntu switching to systemd? https://plus.google.com/115547683951727699051/posts/MuB3MkCnieK /joke I don't know how much Ubuntu is attached to upstart but I would not be surprised if they evaluated a switch to systemd seriously given the traction that it seems to have in the upstream GNOME ecosystem. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/liberation/ -- 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/20120401081944.gg15...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
Re: On init in Debian
On Mar 31, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote: I’ve not seen many people interested specifically in upstart in this discussion, apart from Canonical employees. I am interested in upstart and I am not a Canonical employee, but I refrained from discussing which init system is better because the urgent goal right now is to make everybody understand that they are all better than sysvinit. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 10:19:44AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: joke But isn't Ubuntu switching to systemd? https://plus.google.com/115547683951727699051/posts/MuB3MkCnieK /joke The guy's reality distortion field is amazing. Last bastion, heh. Interesting wording for all but two distributions. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. -- 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/20120401091243.ga32...@angband.pl
Re: On init in Debian
Russ Allbery wrote: Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: I’ve not seen many people interested specifically in upstart in this discussion, apart from Canonical employees. For the record, I'm interested specifically in upstart because I think that alignment with Ubuntu is a major win for Debian in terms of the ecosystem and aiding our already extensive sharing of packages. I don't consider that benefit to be overwhelming, and I could be convinced that systemd is the way to go even if it doesn't give us that if it's sufficiently technically better. But I think it's an important thing to keep in mind. Alignment with Ubuntu could give short-term benefits. But using Upstart would practically ensure that the init systems used by major distributions would continue to differ. This is definitely not in the long-term interest of the Linux ecosystem as a whole. Fedora will not switch to a technically inferior system for the sake of compatibility with Debian. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any reasons why Ubuntu would need to keep its own init system, other than NIH and the short-term cost of switching. If it's determined that systemd is the best init system for Debian, then IMO the most appropriate way to ensure alignment would be to put pressure on Ubuntu to abandon Upstart. If Debian implements a well-tuned systemd setup then adopting that in Ubuntu should not be too difficult. To view this from another angle: the major wins of Debian-Ubuntu alignment apply equally much or more to Ubuntu. Why should you consider the Ubuntu decisions to be set in stone, and the Debian side obligated to bear the costs of compatibility by adapting to Ubuntu decisions, even if those decisions are considered suboptimal? -- 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/1333287018.24970.55.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
Re: On init in Debian
Le samedi 31 mars 2012 à 00:18 +0200, Samuel Thibault a écrit : For Linux? Not particularly. If it's *not* for solving everyone's use case, then it's not good for making it a default init implementation. Because it’s a well-known fact that sysvinit solves everyone’s use case. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1333178462.14534.0.camel@tomoyo
Re: On init in Debian
Le vendredi 30 mars 2012 à 20:49 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit : What you think about extending this GSoC project to also implement the translation from systemd unit files to upstart ones? it is worth ? [snip] This means I'm not going to invest time in it, but if somebody shows up with working, tested patches, they'll of course be taken into consideration. I’ve not seen many people interested specifically in upstart in this discussion, apart from Canonical employees. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1333178616.14534.1.camel@tomoyo
Re: On init in Debian
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: I’ve not seen many people interested specifically in upstart in this discussion, apart from Canonical employees. When the People's Front of systemd have met the Campaign for a Free sysvinit on the field of debian-devel, and there are noone left save a few penguins and a wee, confused beastie not quite named Chuck, the upstart Popular People's Front will move in and restore order. -- Stig Sandbeck Mathisen -- 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/87ehs92lee@dagon.fnord.no
Re: On init in Debian
On 03/30/2012 09:46 AM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: This can be the solution we are looking to tie together the different init systems. Hi, Others have already expressed their view that using a *new* format for the init scripts isn't something they want. I wouldn't like to have to use yet another system, which would mean that we wouldn't be able to take upstream init script and just do very little adaptation to make it work in Debian. Here, we're talking about *always* having to rewrite all from scratch, not just few times. By the way, does anyone know a way to count the numbers of init script with have archive wide? It'd be nice to know how much work it would be to rewrite absolutely all init.d scripts, and how many source package this involves. Thomas -- 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/4f772552.1070...@debian.org
Re: On init in Debian
On 31/03/12 17:40, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 03/30/2012 09:46 AM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: This can be the solution we are looking to tie together the different init systems. Hi, Others have already expressed their view that using a *new* format for the init scripts isn't something they want. I wouldn't like to have to use yet another system, which would mean that we wouldn't be able to take upstream init script and just do very little adaptation to make it work in Debian. Here, we're talking about *always* having to rewrite all from scratch, not just few times. Yes, after reading the full thread I think that the best approach is the one proposed by Tollef (a GSoC project to implement a tool that converts systemd unit files to sysvinit). http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00581.html By the way, does anyone know a way to count the numbers of init script with have archive wide? It'd be nice to know how much work it would be to rewrite absolutely all init.d scripts, and how many source package this involves. Thomas You have this here: http://wiki.debian.org/MetaInit/InitSurvey -- ~~~ Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez http://neutrino.es Igalia - Free Software Engineeringhttp://www.igalia.com ~~~ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
[Thomas Goirand] By the way, does anyone know a way to count the numbers of init script with have archive wide? It'd be nice to know how much work it would be to rewrite absolutely all init.d scripts, and how many source package this involves. I did a count of binary packages with init.d scripts at the start of the dependency based boot sequence work. Back then, it was around 1000 binary packages. I used apt-file search /etc/init.d/ to count. :) -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- 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/2flpqbs3epa@login1.uio.no
Re: On init in Debian
Russ Allbery wrote: Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes: It is apparently trying to be a *Linux* standard, being adopted by all distributions. That's not at all clear to me. It seems more to be trying to be a good init system used by Fedora, and beyond that it's left to people to make up their own minds, although of course the author thinks it's good and more people should use it. Most people like the things they've written. :) I think systemd does clearly aim to be a Linux standard. A number of features exist specifically for the sake of allowing better cross-distro compatibility. Some previous distribution-specific interfaces on Fedora have been deprecated. Upstream has explicitly talked about a goal standardizing interfaces between distributions and about specific integration issues with other distributions that affect systemd design (for example in http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/on-etc-sysinit.html). Some GNOME features have started using systemd interfaces and deprecated the previous implementation (at least ConsoleKit). The goal seems to be to eventually have systemd in a position similar to udev, which is now quite standard and is not usually considered as distro-specific software. -- 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/1333215588.24970.25.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
Re: On init in Debian
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: I’ve not seen many people interested specifically in upstart in this discussion, apart from Canonical employees. For the record, I'm interested specifically in upstart because I think that alignment with Ubuntu is a major win for Debian in terms of the ecosystem and aiding our already extensive sharing of packages. I don't consider that benefit to be overwhelming, and I could be convinced that systemd is the way to go even if it doesn't give us that if it's sufficiently technically better. But I think it's an important thing to keep in mind. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/87wr6031n9@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: On init in Debian
]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez On 20/03/12 07:14, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: FWIW, I have a proposal for a GSoC task this year to write a systemd-to-initscript converter, http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2012/Projects#SysV-init_file_creator_from_systemd_service_files The systemd service files are covered by the «interface guarantee», meaning they won't change incompatibly in a future release of systemd, so I think having that as the base format would be fairly reasonable, though probably just a subset so it's portable to other kernels and init systems. And instead of this... why not simply improving metainit to support also systemd files? I doubt you'll get upstreams to write metainit files. I think we'll have upstreams providing systemd files and so I think metainit will basically be #15 in http://xkcd.com/927/. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87hax6393r@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in Debian
Le 30/03/2012 08:18, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit : I doubt you'll get upstreams to write metainit files. I think we'll have upstreams providing systemd files and so I think metainit will basically be #15 in http://xkcd.com/927/. Actually, it's more systemd that looks like #15. Cheers, -- Stéphane -- 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/4f7553a0.9060...@debian.org
Re: On init in Debian
Well, wicd has its own bugs, such as preventing a laptop from suspending. are you talking about a bug from 2008 that has been fixed for ages? https://bugs.launchpad.net/wicd/+bug/306210 -- Salvo Tomaselli -- 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/201203300839.39267.tipos...@tiscali.it
Re: On init in Debian
Stéphane Glondu glo...@debian.org writes: Le 30/03/2012 08:18, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit : I doubt you'll get upstreams to write metainit files. I think we'll have upstreams providing systemd files and so I think metainit will basically be #15 in http://xkcd.com/927/. Actually, it's more systemd that looks like #15. I don't think the analogy really works on either count, although it's somewhat closer for MetaInit. But it definitely doesn't make sense for systemd. systemd's goal wasn't to become a standard that supported things people were already doing. Rather, both it and upstart were aiming to incorporate into the init system brand-new functionality that wasn't currently supported at all, things like real process monitoring beyond init's meager capabilities, safe process kills without using PID files, and of course event-driven boot. They're effectively two different strategies and projects aimed at solving the same set of technical problems. The difference between this and standards is that standards as commented on by XKCD are mostly looking to collect existing solutions to problems that are currently solved in mutually-incompatible ways into a uniform framework. They usually aren't intentionally breaking new ground. The maintenance of systemd is actually quite the opposite of a standard. It's focused on being clean, supportable, and fully integrated with Linux capabilities, *not* to solving everyone's use case, even to the detriment of being universal. A standard in the init script space would look more like what the LSB says about init scripts: a conservative standardization of well-known and pre-existing ideas and technology that have been indepedently solved already by multiple different systems in ways that aren't interoperable. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/87k422si8r@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: On init in Debian
OoO En ce milieu de nuit étoilée du vendredi 30 mars 2012, vers 03:54, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com disait : FWIW, I have a proposal for a GSoC task this year to write a systemd-to-initscript converter, http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2012/Projects#SysV-init_file_creator_from_systemd_service_files The systemd service files are covered by the «interface guarantee», meaning they won't change incompatibly in a future release of systemd, so I think having that as the base format would be fairly reasonable, though probably just a subset so it's portable to other kernels and init systems. And instead of this... why not simply improving metainit to support also systemd files? http://wiki.debian.org/MetaInit We already have this metainit thing that auto-generates both sysvinit and upstart files based on an easy common format. http://darcs.nomeata.de/metainit/examples/ Documentation is rather absent. Currently (from Parse.pm), it seems to only support and use Short-Description, Description, Exec, Prestart-Hook, Poststop-hook and No-Auto directive. It also supports Required-Start. It seems that simple things, like reload, cannot be achieved. -- Vincent Bernat ☯ http://vincent.bernat.im panic(bad_user_access_length executed (not cool, dude)); 2.0.38 /usr/src/linux/kernel/panic.c pgpTkil0976f7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: On init in Debian
]] Stéphane Glondu Le 30/03/2012 08:18, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit : I doubt you'll get upstreams to write metainit files. I think we'll have upstreams providing systemd files and so I think metainit will basically be #15 in http://xkcd.com/927/. Actually, it's more systemd that looks like #15. systemd isn't inventing a new file format in order to unite all the existing ones. metainit is. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/8762dm377y@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in Debian
Russ Allbery, le Thu 29 Mar 2012 23:41:40 -0700, a écrit : systemd's goal wasn't to become a standard that supported things people were already doing. There must be a misunderstanding somewhere, then, and that needs further explanation: the feature comparison page produced by Lenhart says exactly the converse, i.e. that systemd supports a lot of things that people were already doing (console configuration, socket listening, etc.). The maintenance of systemd is actually quite the opposite of a standard. That sentence is quite frightening. It's focused on being clean, supportable, and fully integrated with Linux capabilities, *not* to solving everyone's use case, even to the detriment of being universal. So that directly conflicts with making it a default init implementation. I have to say I'm now quite a bit lost as to what systemd is supposed to be. Samuel -- 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/20120330091158.ga4...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Re: On init in Debian
On 2012-03-29 13:07:56 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Well, it seems like you should file bugs if you can, because a lot of these are not universal problems and therefore probably aren't known issues. I did several months ago: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=637267 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=638591 where I provided logs. But no answers for these bugs. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20120330102300.gq9...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: [OT] NM vs. wicd (was: Re: On init in Debian)
On 2012-03-29 23:23:52 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: On Thursday, March 29, 2012 04:09:57, Vincent Lefevre wrote: Well, wicd has its own bugs, such as preventing a laptop from suspending. Hmm. That sucks. I'd like to debug why you're running into this. However I've been using wicd for over two years and never had this problem, but I'm also running a custom-built kernel (and have been for a long time). Any idea why wicd would prevent your laptop from suspending? The best first guess I have is perhaps a bug with the wireless card driver or firmware such that it won't enter the suspend state. I reported the problem (with wicd and system logs) several months ago: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=637267 I don't know what's going on exactly, but from the logs, it seems that when suspending, the connection is ended (as expected), but then, wicd tries to reconnect, and this may interrupt the suspend. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20120330102950.gr9...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: On init in Debian
On 2012-03-30 08:39:38 +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: Well, wicd has its own bugs, such as preventing a laptop from suspending. are you talking about a bug from 2008 that has been fixed for ages? https://bugs.launchpad.net/wicd/+bug/306210 No, this is not the same bug (in my case, wicd is used). It occurred in August 2011 on an up-to-date Debian/unstable machine. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=637267 -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20120330103300.gs9...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: On init in Debian
]] Samuel Thibault The maintenance of systemd is actually quite the opposite of a standard. That sentence is quite frightening. Is it? It's not like the maintenance of the kernel, KDE or GNOME is done in the manner you maintain a standard. Heck, probably just about no software in Debian is maintained in a manner that would be suitable for a standard. It's focused on being clean, supportable, and fully integrated with Linux capabilities, *not* to solving everyone's use case, even to the detriment of being universal. So that directly conflicts with making it a default init implementation. For Linux? Not particularly. For non-Linux ports? Sure. Nobody has seriously argued against that. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/871uoa2om0@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in Debian
On 30/03/12 08:18, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez On 20/03/12 07:14, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: FWIW, I have a proposal for a GSoC task this year to write a systemd-to-initscript converter, http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2012/Projects#SysV-init_file_creator_from_systemd_service_files The systemd service files are covered by the «interface guarantee», meaning they won't change incompatibly in a future release of systemd, so I think having that as the base format would be fairly reasonable, though probably just a subset so it's portable to other kernels and init systems. And instead of this... why not simply improving metainit to support also systemd files? I doubt you'll get upstreams to write metainit files. I think we'll have upstreams providing systemd files and so I think metainit will basically be #15 in http://xkcd.com/927/. Good point. What you think about extending this GSoC project to also implement the translation from systemd unit files to upstart ones? it is worth ? I am afraid that if everybody switches to systemd only ubuntu will remain using upstart. And this weird canonical contributor agreement don't makes thing easier for them http://thepcspy.com/read/ubuntu-and-the-canonical-contributor-agreement/ Best Regards! -- ~~~ Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez http://neutrino.es Igalia - Free Software Engineeringhttp://www.igalia.com ~~~ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes: Russ Allbery, le Thu 29 Mar 2012 23:41:40 -0700, a écrit : It's focused on being clean, supportable, and fully integrated with Linux capabilities, *not* to solving everyone's use case, even to the detriment of being universal. So that directly conflicts with making it a default init implementation. On Linux? Why? It's not trying to be a *standard*, which would imply that Solaris would use it, Mac OS X would use it, AIX would use it, NetBSD would use it But I don't think that being a standard in that way is a horribly compelling feature that Debian cares about. It is sort of nice to have everything use the same init script format, and it used to be that was kind of, sort of the case, but it's not been true for years. Solaris is now using SMF, Mac OS X has its own thing that's completely different, etc. For better or worse, there is no standard for init scripts, and neither systemd nor upstart (nor, for that matter, sysvinit) are really trying to become that. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/87d37uvvf2@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: On init in Debian
Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net writes: On 2012-03-29 13:07:56 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Well, it seems like you should file bugs if you can, because a lot of these are not universal problems and therefore probably aren't known issues. I did several months ago: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=637267 This is the one that no one else who's using wicd seems to be able to duplicate. I agree with other people that this is probably something specific to your hardware. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=638591 I don't think your diagnosis of this is correct, in that I don't think wicd is what's doing this. I was getting things like that with Network Manager as well, and usually rebooting my wireless router makes this behavior stop. I always wrote this one off to crappy consumer wireless routers, which have all sorts of strange failure modes when they're not rebooted regularly. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/878viivva0@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: On init in Debian
]] Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez Hi, What you think about extending this GSoC project to also implement the translation from systemd unit files to upstart ones? it is worth ? My interest in translating systemd units to sysvinit scripts is because it'll enable us to have higher-quality init scripts and enable us to use systemd as the default, if we so wish, without it impeding our non-Linux ports. I'm not particularly interested in making it possible to convert systemd units to upstart jobs, as it won't help with that goal. This means I'm not going to invest time in it, but if somebody shows up with working, tested patches, they'll of course be taken into consideration. cheers, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87d37t2abr@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in Debian
Tollef Fog Heen, le Fri 30 Mar 2012 15:40:55 +0200, a écrit : The maintenance of systemd is actually quite the opposite of a standard. That sentence is quite frightening. Is it? It's not like the maintenance of the kernel, KDE or GNOME is done in the manner you maintain a standard. Heck, probably just about no software in Debian is maintained in a manner that would be suitable for a standard. That depends what is meant by standard. Linux, KDE and Gnome at least take some care to follow LFS, and define sensible interfaces, with sensible names, etc. which is part of defining a standard. It's focused on being clean, supportable, and fully integrated with Linux capabilities, *not* to solving everyone's use case, even to the detriment of being universal. So that directly conflicts with making it a default init implementation. For Linux? Not particularly. If it's *not* for solving everyone's use case, then it's not good for making it a default init implementation. For non-Linux ports? Sure. Nobody has seriously argued against that. I'm not talking about that. Samuel -- 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/20120330221820.gg4...@type.famille.thibault.fr
Re: On init in Debian
Russ Allbery, le Fri 30 Mar 2012 10:41:05 -0700, a écrit : Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes: Russ Allbery, le Thu 29 Mar 2012 23:41:40 -0700, a écrit : It's focused on being clean, supportable, and fully integrated with Linux capabilities, *not* to solving everyone's use case, even to the detriment of being universal. So that directly conflicts with making it a default init implementation. On Linux? Why? It's not trying to be a *standard*, It is apparently trying to be a *Linux* standard, being adopted by all distributions. That does mean things which, even if not talking about unix but just Linux, means you have to take some care, in the same vein as when you define a Unix standard. But I don't think that being a standard in that way is a horribly compelling feature that Debian cares about. It is sort of nice to have everything use the same init script format, and it used to be that was kind of, sort of the case, but it's not been true for years. The current init standard boils down to /etc/init.d/foo start/stop, and it has been true for years. The particular content being another matter. I'm not saying it was a good standard. The deviation of the content of the init scripts really is a matter. For better or worse, there is no standard for init scripts, and neither systemd nor upstart (nor, for that matter, sysvinit) are really trying to become that. If they are to be adopted widely, it'd be better for them to sort of being one, so that upstreams could ship configuration snippets, instead of seeing all distributions defining its own ones, bringing small discrepancies here and there, which can be a pain when going from one to the other. Samuel -- 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/20120330222417.gh4...@type.famille.thibault.fr
Re: On init in Debian
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18:20AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: If it's *not* for solving everyone's use case, then it's not good for making it a default init implementation. You cannot ever solve everyone's use cases. What systemd (and upstart) aim to do is to solve all use cases that sysvinit can solve plus a lot of things that it doesn't (or can't, by design). Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall t...@debian.org /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- 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/20120330223324.gh17...@suiko.acc.umu.se
Re: On init in Debian
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes: It is apparently trying to be a *Linux* standard, being adopted by all distributions. That's not at all clear to me. It seems more to be trying to be a good init system used by Fedora, and beyond that it's left to people to make up their own minds, although of course the author thinks it's good and more people should use it. Most people like the things they've written. :) The current init standard boils down to /etc/init.d/foo start/stop, and it has been true for years. The particular content being another matter. Which is insufficient to the point of being nearly useless. Every UNIX-like system has requirements that go beyond that; an init script that only honored those options and implemented no other interfaces wouldn't be usable on just about any environment, including Debian. All the upstreams that I know of that have to ship init scripts have, even before upstart and systemd, been shipping separate init scripts for each OS that they support. The Red Hat one had chkconfig comments, the Debian one used start-stop-daemon, the Solaris one then ended up being converted to SMF, and so forth. systemd certainly didn't make this any worse. If they are to be adopted widely, it'd be better for them to sort of being one, so that upstreams could ship configuration snippets, instead of seeing all distributions defining its own ones, bringing small discrepancies here and there, which can be a pain when going from one to the other. Sure, that would be great. But that's not the situation now, and hasn't been the situation for as long as I've been working on UNIX-like systems. (Before things like LSB started, there were other UNIXes that only did rc.local, or that didn't use SysV-style priorities, etc.) My point here is that I think you're putting an unreasonable burden on init systems by asking them to become a standard. We effectively have no standard now, and the init package we're using now certainly doesn't constitute standard that everyone is using along the lines that you describe (if nothing else, Fedora is using systemd and Ubuntu is using upstart!). It would be great to have a standard, but I don't think it's very likely that's going to happen, and we still have to decide what init system we're going to use in the interim. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/87y5qhra5c@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: On init in Debian
On 2012-03-30 10:44:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net writes: On 2012-03-29 13:07:56 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Well, it seems like you should file bugs if you can, because a lot of these are not universal problems and therefore probably aren't known issues. I did several months ago: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=637267 This is the one that no one else who's using wicd seems to be able to duplicate. I agree with other people that this is probably something specific to your hardware. It could be related to many things (in particular configuration), but the problem is purely software, as seen in the logs. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=638591 I don't think your diagnosis of this is correct, in that I don't think wicd is what's doing this. I was getting things like that with Network Manager as well, and usually rebooting my wireless router makes this behavior stop. I always wrote this one off to crappy consumer wireless routers, which have all sorts of strange failure modes when they're not rebooted regularly. The router may be a bit bad, but the kernel apparently could handle it, and that's wicd that chose to force the disconnection. So, this is a 100% wicd bug. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20120330231642.gv9...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: On init in Debian
On 2012-03-31 01:16:42 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2012-03-30 10:44:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I don't think your diagnosis of this is correct, in that I don't think wicd is what's doing this. I was getting things like that with Network Manager as well, and usually rebooting my wireless router makes this behavior stop. I always wrote this one off to crappy consumer wireless routers, which have all sorts of strange failure modes when they're not rebooted regularly. The router may be a bit bad, but the kernel apparently could handle it, and that's wicd that chose to force the disconnection. So, this is a 100% wicd bug. and I use a Nokia N900 with the same modem-router every day, and I've never had such a disconnection problem with it. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20120330232035.ga21...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: On init in Debian
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com writes: $ sudo apt-get remove network-manager* $ sudo apt-get install wicd wicd-curses wicd-gtk ^ wicd-kde ? $ wicd-curses And enjoy your network without the NM mess :) ... unless, of course, you're using gnome-shell, which currently doesn't work without network-manager...! [naturally network-manager plays badly with NFS, so just installing NM causes other problems... argh] :( -miles -- People who are more than casually interested in computers should have at least some idea of what the underlying hardware is like. Otherwise the programs they write will be pretty weird. -- Donald Knuth -- 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/buopqbvgbhu@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com
Re: On init in Debian
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 15:35 +0900, Miles Bader wrote: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com writes: $ sudo apt-get remove network-manager* $ sudo apt-get install wicd wicd-curses wicd-gtk ^ wicd-kde ? $ wicd-curses And enjoy your network without the NM mess :) ... unless, of course, you're using gnome-shell, which currently doesn't work without network-manager...! I'm using the fall-back mode of gnome3, i.e. no gnome-shell, right? Then I would be safe. -- 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/1333005709.8013.98.ca...@hp.my.own.domain
Re: On init in Debian
On 2012-03-29 02:43:33 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: $ sudo apt-get remove network-manager* $ sudo apt-get install wicd wicd-curses wicd-gtk ^ wicd-kde ? $ wicd-curses And enjoy your network without the NM mess :) Well, wicd has its own bugs, such as preventing a laptop from suspending. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20120329080957.gl9...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: On init in Debian
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:09:57AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2012-03-29 02:43:33 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: $ sudo apt-get remove network-manager* $ sudo apt-get install wicd wicd-curses wicd-gtk ^ wicd-kde ? $ wicd-curses And enjoy your network without the NM mess :) Well, wicd has its own bugs, such as preventing a laptop from suspending. Or an absolutely horrible UI, no helper for vpns, auto-reconnection not working after a connection loss (works at boot, fortunately), randomly taking 30 seconds to shutdown, and not able to connect to WPA enterprise. And this is not just years-old hearsay, like most complains about NM, it's first-hand experience with the package currently in wheezy/unstable. I could file bugs, but I have so many problems that I'm better off switching to NM. Mike -- 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/20120329082050.ga12...@glandium.org
[OT] NM vs. wicd (was: Re: On init in Debian)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:20:50 +0200, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote: ... I could file bugs, but I have so many problems that I'm better off switching to NM. Well, that's constructive -- well done. I think you'll find that there are two groups of users (at least), one that is relatively happy with the assumptions made by the NM developers, another who are driven immediately insane by how broken those assumptions are. I'm in the latter camp, so I ran screaming from NM to wicd, and have been fairly happy ever since, but then I don't use gnome, I do use interesting bridging and VPN setups, and I fairly often have wired and wireless connections running at the same time, so I shouldn't really expect NM to be a good fit for me, and I don't. Wicd does have rough edges, but they make some sort of sense to me, whereas NM just fights with what I wanted to happen. I'd only use either to make flipping between wireless networks something where I don't need to keep the comandline incantations in my head anyway, so the last thing I need is NM noticing that I've plugged or unplugged an ethernet cable, and doing something about it. Clearly, other people want to be able to plug an ethernet cable in and have it Just Work. It seems to me that most of the people complaining about either of these are actually complaining about their own preferences, and how they are not served as well by one tool than another. This has sod all to do with init variants. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND pgp4vT4beJ65R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] NM vs. wicd (was: Re: On init in Debian)
On 2012-03-29 11:15:30 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: I'd only use either to make flipping between wireless networks something where I don't need to keep the comandline incantations in my head anyway, so the last thing I need is NM noticing that I've plugged or unplugged an ethernet cable, and doing something about it. Clearly, other people want to be able to plug an ethernet cable in and have it Just Work. Well, wicd has problems when I unplug an ethernet cable and plug it again: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=557156 -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20120329111705.gm9...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: [OT] NM vs. wicd (was: Re: On init in Debian)
On 2012-03-29 11:15:30 +0100 (+0100), Philip Hands wrote:
[...]
I'd only use either to make flipping between wireless networks something
where I don't need to keep the comandline incantations in my head
[...]
And indeed, I just keep the commandline incantations in my head
for ifupdown, wireless-tools, wpa_supplicant and friends with
reasonably flexible configurations. Roaming between known networks
works automatically, but sure when I want to connect to a new
wireless network I resort to scanning from the CLI to identify the
ESSID and then stuffing that into my config and restarting a few
things. I certainly wouldn't suggest it as a default for the Desktop
task, requires root privs among other issues, but there are
definitely still working solutions out there for those of us who
would rather wrestle with a manpage than some GUI (even a
curses-based one).
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fu...@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fu...@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kin...@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fu...@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }
--
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/20120329171013.gd...@yuggoth.org
Re: On init in Debian
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org writes: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:09:57AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: Well, wicd has its own bugs, such as preventing a laptop from suspending. Works for me; I've never had any trouble at all suspending my laptop and I've been using wicd for years. (The laptop tracks unstable.) Or an absolutely horrible UI, Works for me, but a matter of taste, of course. :) I like it much better than the NM GUI. no helper for vpns, Haven't tried. auto-reconnection not working after a connection loss (works at boot, fortunately), Works for me and tested regularly. Be sure that you have the automatically connect to this network option selected. randomly taking 30 seconds to shutdown, Works for me. and not able to connect to WPA enterprise. Pretty sure this worked for me, but it's not something I use regularly. And this is not just years-old hearsay, like most complains about NM, it's first-hand experience with the package currently in wheezy/unstable. I could file bugs, but I have so many problems that I'm better off switching to NM. Well, it seems like you should file bugs if you can, because a lot of these are not universal problems and therefore probably aren't known issues. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/87iphnp3vn@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: On init in Debian
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 13:07, Russ Allbery wrote: Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org writes: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:09:57AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: Well, wicd has its own bugs, such as preventing a laptop from suspending. Works for me; I've never had any trouble at all suspending my laptop and I've been using wicd for years. (The laptop tracks unstable.) Also for me, my wife, daughter, nephew and son. :-] [...] -- Kind regards, Milan -- Arvanta, IT Securityhttp://www.arvanta.net Please do not send me e-mail containing HTML code or documents in proprietary format (word, excel, pps and so on) -- 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/20120329205644.ga23...@arvanta.net
Re: On init in Debian
On 19/03/12 14:23, Jon Dowland wrote: I just had a look, and no, that's not what metainit does. What it does is *generating* an init.d script, using the metainit syntax as input. IMO, just a normal shell script tiny library to simplify our init.d scripts would be enough. So it does more than enough - sounds to me like it meets your requirements (in fact exceeds them) and has the added advantage that it *already exists* whereas the hypothetical shell script library does not. I didn't know about this metainit thing and it looks awesome. http://wiki.debian.org/MetaInit So we already have a system that generates startup files for both sysvinit and upstart ... what about extending it to also support systemd? We can later request all maintainers to port the startup scripts of their respective packages to metainit via a new debian standard-version and also with lintian warnings if a startup script other than the metainit one is detected on the package. This can be the solution we are looking to tie together the different init systems. -- ~~~ Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez http://neutrino.es Igalia - Free Software Engineeringhttp://www.igalia.com ~~~ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
On 20/03/12 07:14, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: FWIW, I have a proposal for a GSoC task this year to write a systemd-to-initscript converter, http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2012/Projects#SysV-init_file_creator_from_systemd_service_files The systemd service files are covered by the «interface guarantee», meaning they won't change incompatibly in a future release of systemd, so I think having that as the base format would be fairly reasonable, though probably just a subset so it's portable to other kernels and init systems. And instead of this... why not simply improving metainit to support also systemd files? http://wiki.debian.org/MetaInit We already have this metainit thing that auto-generates both sysvinit and upstart files based on an easy common format. http://darcs.nomeata.de/metainit/examples/ -- ~~~ Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez http://neutrino.es Igalia - Free Software Engineeringhttp://www.igalia.com ~~~ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[OT] NM vs. wicd (was: Re: On init in Debian)
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 04:09:57, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2012-03-29 02:43:33 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: $ sudo apt-get remove network-manager* $ sudo apt-get install wicd wicd-curses wicd-gtk ^ wicd-kde ? $ wicd-curses And enjoy your network without the NM mess :) Well, wicd has its own bugs, such as preventing a laptop from suspending. Hmm. That sucks. I'd like to debug why you're running into this. However I've been using wicd for over two years and never had this problem, but I'm also running a custom-built kernel (and have been for a long time). Any idea why wicd would prevent your laptop from suspending? The best first guess I have is perhaps a bug with the wireless card driver or firmware such that it won't enter the suspend state. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- 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/201203292323.52948.chris.kna...@coredump.us
Re: On init in Debian
On 03/17/2012 01:40 PM, Philip Hands wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 18:23:57 +0800, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: NAME=package-binary-file DESC=package daemon description [ -e . /usr/share/sysv-lib/debsysv-lib ] debsysv-init-lib $@ I'm happy to help with that ... although, I doubt we're the first people to think of something like this, and it would be a shame to ignore an existing solution. OpenWRT does something quite interesting, which is that they have an /etc/rc.common and then make the init scripts start thus: Any others? As you are contemplating non-Linux systems anyway, maybe this might be of interest to you, too: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/rc.d/ -- Kind regards, --Toni++ -- 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/4f72da81.7070...@debian.org
Re: On init in Debian
On 2012-03-18 00:53:37 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: disclaimerI know almost nothing about systemd/disclaimer I'd like people to think twice before opt-in for systemd. I just taked with a friend working for redhat, and he told me how much he hates it. He told me that if *anything* goes wrong in the boot process, then basically, you're stuck, because the next thing will be waiting forever. That's basically truth with any event based init, and maybe we're just fine with just dependency booting. That's also true with sysvinit. For instance: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=654822 The only thing to do is to fix bugs... -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20120329000758.ga16...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: On init in Debian
On 23/03/12 13:35, Svante Signell wrote: On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 14:16 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Vi, 23 mar 12, 00:07:43, Svante Signell wrote: Please, don't make things unbearably complicated in case something breaks!!! Network *should* work also in console mode... I'm not a big fan of Network Manager, but this is unfair: if you click Make available to all users the connection will be available also on the console. Are you talking about clicking ... when in X then? How does that solve the problem when X does not work? Can the Network Manager be controlled/started/configured in console mode when X is not running? If the answer to the above questions is yes, maybe that setting (making Network Manager work also without X) would be the default! $ sudo apt-get remove network-manager* $ sudo apt-get install wicd wicd-curses wicd-gtk ^ wicd-kde ? $ wicd-curses And enjoy your network without the NM mess :) -- ~~~ Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez http://neutrino.es Igalia - Free Software Engineeringhttp://www.igalia.com ~~~ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
]] Stefano Zacchiroli It is not clear to me the status of similar policy work for systemd, although I see that systemd maintainers are participating in #591791. Again, if you're interested in Debian switch to systemd, please contribute to that work rather than arguing on -devel. It's not entirely clear to me that we need any policy changes at all for packages to ship systemd unit files. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87zkb28szu@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in Debian
Hi there! On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:45:20 +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: Writing configuration files with the shell is not going to be anywhere simple. In two years, it will be the same mess as now: everybody will have extended the configuration with its own functions and somebody will come up and say those functions should be put into some library. We already have /lib/lsb/init-functions and start-stop-daemon. Almost no daemon stick to /etc/init.d/skeleton. And some of our init scripts should already be adapted to not abuse LSB internal functions (NB, openvpn is just the first case I stumbled on): http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660790#10 Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca pgpabPwO4E9m2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: On init in Debian
* Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi [2012-03-23 19:44]: IMO your upstart advocacy and anti-systemd FUD crosses the line between having your own opinions and having your own facts. Could you please mind your words. Your style of discussion is very hostile! There was neither FUD nor advocacy in Steves mail and no hostile attitude towards systemd. In contrast to your systemd advocacy as the new default init Steve outlined the necessary changes to provide upstart as an alternative to sysvinit for those that want to use it without making it default for everyone. The RHEL 6 uses upstart [1] and while it is true that Fedora is using systemd I could not find any evidence that RHEL intends to change any time soon. yours Martin [1] https://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Migration_Planning_Guide/ch04s02.html -- 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/20120326065030.ge2...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: On init in Debian
Martin Wuertele wrote: * Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi [2012-03-23 19:44]: IMO your [Steve Langasek's] upstart advocacy and anti-systemd FUD crosses the line between having your own opinions and having your own facts. There was neither FUD nor advocacy in Steves mail and no hostile attitude towards systemd. IMO calling comments like The current [bad] state of upstart in Debian is a reflection of the upstart maintainers' respect for Debian and desire to not destabilize the distribution advocacy is perfectly accurate. Especially when systemd in Debian works much better, without causing such destabilization. Note that my comment about his FUD posting was not based only on the mail I was replying to. I've already commented on false claims he's made earlier: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg00935.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg01177.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg01182.html In contrast to your systemd advocacy as the new default init Steve outlined the necessary changes to provide upstart as an alternative to He posted some actual information and some quite dubious claims. My posts about systemd have been more objective. The RHEL 6 uses upstart [1] and while it is true that Fedora is using systemd I could not find any evidence that RHEL intends to change any time soon. I think the evidence I described in my mail is quite significant. Whether the switch actually happens soon is another question; but that's due to RHEL being maintained in a very conservative manner. Note that Steve wrote no indication, and without any qualification such as soon. Would you really honestly say there's no indication of RHEL switching away from upstart? -- 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/1332778117.1709.24.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
Re: On init in Debian
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:14:53AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
There is a lot of feelings and temper involved in the current discussion
of init implementations in Debian. I'd like to try to de-escalate by
summarizing things in as objective and non-confrontational manner as I can.
Lars, thanks for this summary. Despite the fact you seem to be unhappy
about having posted it, I find it quite useful. For one thing, it's a
good mail to restart from when thinking back about this whole debate
after a while.
I also have the impression that in discussions that are naturally prone
to religious arguments, it's unreasonable to expect that *all*
contributions will be constructive (for some personal definition of
constructive). There will always be contributions that we don't think
are constructive, or that are simply partisan. That does not necessarily
mean that the whole discussion has been useless. In all these upstart
vs systemd threads, it seems to me that we've fixed quite some points.
An important one is the lack of hands on experience with either of the
contender (systemd, upstart) _in Debian_. A number of post in the
threads seem to be just relying arguments from the respective marketing
camps, which naturally attract the ire of people who have actually
worked on the systems and feel the need to debunk myths. A number of
other posts are on rather general principles (e.g. we should not adopt
something that is not ported on $system). That is all fine and well.
But we should all know how we like doing things in Debian: we will not
bet the choice of the default init system on something we haven't
tested. Therefore, a more productive use of the time of -devel readers
will be on allowing all of us to test either option _in Debian_. How can
we do that?
Given the far reaching nature of init systems in all system services,
the proper way to do that in the long run has been mentioned repeatedly
by Russ in the threads: *support in Policy* for *optional* upstart jobs
in packages. On that front, there seems to be quite some work done
already, at least for upstart (see #591791). People interested in these
discussion should really consider helping out policy finalization. It
will be way more productive than trying to win an argument before the
debian-devel audience --- which have close to no impact on the final
choice we will make. It is not clear to me the status of similar policy
work for systemd, although I see that systemd maintainers are
participating in #591791. Again, if you're interested in Debian switch
to systemd, please contribute to that work rather than arguing on
-devel.
But given that no one is seriously thinking of making the change for
Wheezy, an important question is: how do we encourage more testing of
either options in time for Wheezy+1? I think it'd be great to have well
written guides that will allow Wheezy users to *experiment* with either
upstart and systemd. Similar documents exist in the respective packages
and have also been posted in form of blog posts on Planet Debian. People
interested in pushing for one of the two options, should consider
helping out with these documents. If they reach a good status, they can
also be proposed for inclusion in official Wheezy documentation. Nothing
like real feedback from our users will advance the cause of either
upstart or systemd in Debian.
Regarding porting, I recommend against using the argument we should not
switch to something not supported by the $non_linux_port we released in
the past as technical preview. For one thing, the observation by
Christoph is very compelling (i.e. first we choose, than we port ---
don't ask us to port before the choice). For another, accepting that
argument will make us *more conservative* in the future about accepting
new ports. We will probably worry more and more about the impact on
(currently) popular ports, of accepting new ports as supported. In the
long run, we will probably diminish our willingness to accept new port
as supported. That would be a shame and also a strategic error.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
On Mar 22, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote: So you believe that systemd Please let's not forget that this is not about systemd: we have not even started yet the flame war to decide if we should use systemd or upstart. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
On 03/23/2012 12:14 PM, Chris Knadle wrote: [1] https://blip.tv/linuxconfau/beyond-init-systemd-4715015 This is very interesting, thanks for the link. What I found interesting, is when he says that all distributions are switching to systemd. All but ... Ubuntu. But he pretends to have good hopes for them to switch in a year or so. I didn't find him very convincing with that last point, but if Debian switches to systemd, then that will be one more reason for Ubuntu to switch from upstart to systemd as well. Thomas -- 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/4f6c3c89@debian.org
Re: On init in Debian
On 03/22/2012 07:10 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: This I disagree with, Debian doesn't work by people sitting down, writing papers and then agreeing on a course of action. Debian works, mostly, by people putting in effort and then documenting how others can solve the same or similar problems. And also with release goals. If we decide to change sysvinit by something else (which ever it is), I guess it would be a wheezy+1 release goal (I really hope that nobody is seriously thinking about such radical change so close from the freeze...). Thomas -- 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/4f6c3d2c.2070...@goirand.fr
Re: On init in Debian
]] Samuel Thibault Tollef Fog Heen, le Thu 22 Mar 2012 15:47:45 +0100, a écrit : Stig Sandbeck Mathisen, le Thu 22 Mar 2012 13:35:15 +0100, a écrit : Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes: Because the issue at stake might lie in systemd itself, not the unit file. And if /bin/sh breaks on an init style system, you can fix it with an editor? You can cp a known-to-work-statically-compiled /bin/sh there. How is this different from copying a known-to-work, statically compiled copy of systemd in? What init scripts use from the shell is way less complex than what systemd implements, and it's independant from what is needed to achieve the boot. You can copy over a woking systemd, fine, your system can boot, but you have to debug the issue with the non-working systemd, i.e. go back to a non-booting system. No, you don't. You can use systemd --test, you can debug by looking at the logs and the units on the system. You can do a test boot by installing the new systemd, then doing: kvm -m 512 -snapshot -drive file=/dev/sda or similar. When a bug is in the shell and hits the init scripts (I've never seen such a bug), you can at least debug that outside of the boot process. How can you do that if your system doesn't boot? Have you actually tried systemd and run into problems and not filed bugs, or are you just spreading FUD here? Call it FUD if you want, but what I believe is true is: I call it FUD when you are spreading rumours rather than speaking from experience, yes. You seem to be making the assumption that you'll spend lots of time debugging systemd itself rather than debugging units, this in contrast with shell scripts where you spend most of the time debugging the shell scripts rather than the shell. I really hope that we're able to have good enough tools that you can use the tools much more than you're debugging them, and I think that's generally true for the software in Debian, and I see no reason for systemd to be particularly different in that regard. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87ty1f7jmh@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in Debian
]] Thomas Goirand And also with release goals. If we decide to change sysvinit by something else (which ever it is), I guess it would be a wheezy+1 release goal (I really hope that nobody is seriously thinking about such radical change so close from the freeze...). I'm working on getting systemd in good shape for wheezy so people can use it and play around with it in wheezy. I have no plans at all on proposing it as default for wheezy, no. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87pqc37je9@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in Debian
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 05:04:09PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 03/23/2012 12:14 PM, Chris Knadle wrote: [1] https://blip.tv/linuxconfau/beyond-init-systemd-4715015 This is very interesting, thanks for the link. What I found interesting, is when he says that all distributions are switching to systemd. All but ... Ubuntu. ... and everything I bothered to check, except for parts of the RPM land. Others at most provide systemd as an optional package, like Debian, gentoo, Arch, usually marked as thoroughly unsupported. Distribution popularity estimates are notoriously unreliable and typically refer to client rather than server usage, but we're talking about something in the ballpart of a whooping 15%. So if Poettering's world ends on Fedora and Suse, this doesn't give big hopes for portability. -- // If you believe in so-called intellectual property, please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: On init in Debian
Please let's not forget that this is not about systemd: we have not even started yet the flame war to decide if we should use systemd or upstart. Well, In find the overall reception of systemd in upstream projects and the current state of upstart in Debian quite convincing. Even OpenSUSE who were about to switch to upstart cut the corner and go with systemd now. -- 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/4f6c48e1.5090...@greffrath.com
Re: On init in Debian
Tollef Fog Heen, le Fri 23 Mar 2012 10:27:02 +0100, a écrit : What init scripts use from the shell is way less complex than what systemd implements, and it's independant from what is needed to achieve the boot. You can copy over a woking systemd, fine, your system can boot, but you have to debug the issue with the non-working systemd, i.e. go back to a non-booting system. No, you don't. You can use systemd --test, Well, that does not test the actual execution. you can debug by looking at the logs and the units on the system. Do these logs really include all the information I'll need? I usually need to put prints to analyze what is really happening. That means rebuilding it, restart, etc. You can do a test boot by installing the new systemd, then doing: kvm -m 512 -snapshot -drive file=/dev/sda or similar. Which permits to keep the production system running in the meanwhile, indeed. That may not however test in real conditions. When a bug is in the shell and hits the init scripts (I've never seen such a bug), you can at least debug that outside of the boot process. How can you do that if your system doesn't boot? By using the known-to-work /bin/sh to boot the system, and then work on the particular script that poses problem. With a deamon like systemd, it's rather all-or-nothing. Of course, systemd can probably be made to do such kind of isolation of the start bits, to isolate the problem and work on it. That's still more involved to work on than when dealing with mere shell scripts. Have you actually tried systemd and run into problems and not filed bugs, or are you just spreading FUD here? Call it FUD if you want, but what I believe is true is: I call it FUD when you are spreading rumours rather than speaking from experience, yes. I'm speaking from experience of having to fix init script details in the past, for which having to deal with a C implementation would have meant more time, yes. You seem to be making the assumption that you'll spend lots of time debugging systemd itself rather than debugging units, this in contrast with shell scripts where you spend most of the time debugging the shell scripts rather than the shell. I'm making the assumption that when things go bad, not-low-probability exists that I'll have to dig in the C files. For instance, vconsole-setup.c is a reimplementation of the usual shell script for setting up the console font keymap. I have had to fix this kind of script in the past because of forgotten details. Here I'd have to deal with a C implementation. I really hope that we're able to have good enough tools that you can use the tools much more than you're debugging them, The question is not there, but whether when I have to debug them, I'll have to spend more time. Especially when the effect is the system not booting... Just to make it clear: I'm not saying a C-based implementation is bad. Shell scripts are bad at text manipulation etc. But I believe they at least permit quick debugging, which is an important matter for bootup. Samuel -- 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/20120323103505.gb6...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Re: On init in Debian
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:49:09AM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote: * Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it [2012-03-21 09:34]: On Mar 21, Svante Signell svante.sign...@telia.com wrote: And how do you expect non-experts be able to solve problems when they pop up. Buying consultant services from the experts? Non-experts are not able to solve any problem, so this is not an issue. But they can provide debugging info and some level of analyses that helps to triage the problems (and if it's a simple set -x in init scripts). This has been asserted quite a few times in the thread, and I think it's an oversimplification of the matter. We have: startpar initsystemd -- (lots of)(lots of) shell scripts unit files There's an important distinction between debugging a buggy service (be it a shell script or unit file) and a buggy init implementation (be it sysvinit/startpar or systemd or upstart). Debugging the core sysvinit or systemd code does require programming expertise, but it only needs doing once. Once it's tested and known to work well, the chance of a user running into problems with it is very small. We initially had problems when startpar was introduced: it was buggy in certain cases, and some init scripts had incorrect dependency information, resulting in boot problems. It's now well tested and works well. I'm sure the same will apply to systemd, but it will work very well once the initial teething problems are fixed. It's not common for users to run into major problems with an individual init script, but when they do, I don't agreee that it's easy to debug. init scripts are, by their very nature, full of horribly complex shell script, and understanding what everything does for a single service often requires initimate knowledge of how the service works. While it's possible to manually fix up a script to work by editing it, the reality is that only a few people have the expertise to do that. And the most important point, is that with unit files, you never need to do that: they are so simple, they should be obviously correct. The chance of there being a problem in the first place is vastly reduced. While it's true that if something goes wrong with systemd, diagnosing it and fixing it might be difficult, this is mainly due to our (collective) lack of experience with it rather than there being anything intrinsically more difficult about it. If anything, it promises to be vastly simpler and more robust than the spaghetti mess of shell we currently have to deal with. If there are corner cases where the boot hangs, that's simply something which needs finding and fixing. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools `-GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800 -- 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/20120323104431.gc24...@codelibre.net
Re: On init in Debian
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes: the particular script that poses problem. With a deamon like systemd, it's rather all-or-nothing. This gives me the impression that systemd would be a single monolithic binary but isn't vconsole-setup.c that you mention actually part of a small helper binary at /lib/systemd/systemd-vconsole-setup? I've only studied systemd for a few weeks but can't you for example replace the line ExecStart=/lib/systemd/systemd-vconsole-setup in /lib/systemd/system/systemd-vconsole-setup.service with something like ExecStart=strace -o /var/tmp/systemd-vconsole-setup /lib/systemd/systemd-vconsole-setup to get at least some debugging data? And if you suspect that an upgrade broke something you probably can get an older version of this binary with debsnap and then systemctl restart systemd-vconsole-setup.service to test it. -- 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/841uoj4ipn@sauna.l.org
Re: On init in Debian
On Vi, 23 mar 12, 00:07:43, Svante Signell wrote: Please, don't make things unbearably complicated in case something breaks!!! Network *should* work also in console mode... I'm not a big fan of Network Manager, but this is unfair: if you click Make available to all users the connection will be available also on the console. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
Le vendredi 23 mars 2012 à 00:07 +0100, Svante Signell a écrit : Speaking about buggy software: Today the libpcre3 update broke a lot of functions on my computer This is an interesting story, as libpcre3 being a really core part of the system now means that it should stop being maintained in such an amateurish way. And I’m not telling to throw stones at anyone, but it’s at least the second time something happens on this scale in a short timeframe, and it is not acceptable. But I fail to see how it tells anything about systemd, for which the developers actually refuse to use more external dependencies, even where there would be big benefits. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1332506014.4294.4.camel@tomoyo
Re: On init in Debian
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 14:16 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Vi, 23 mar 12, 00:07:43, Svante Signell wrote: Please, don't make things unbearably complicated in case something breaks!!! Network *should* work also in console mode... I'm not a big fan of Network Manager, but this is unfair: if you click Make available to all users the connection will be available also on the console. Are you talking about clicking ... when in X then? How does that solve the problem when X does not work? Can the Network Manager be controlled/started/configured in console mode when X is not running? If the answer to the above questions is yes, maybe that setting (making Network Manager work also without X) would be the default! -- 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/1332506134.2962.302.ca...@s1499.it.kth.se
Re: On init in Debian
Hi Dne Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:35:34 +0100 Svante Signell svante.sign...@telia.com napsal(a): On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 14:16 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Vi, 23 mar 12, 00:07:43, Svante Signell wrote: Please, don't make things unbearably complicated in case something breaks!!! Network *should* work also in console mode... I'm not a big fan of Network Manager, but this is unfair: if you click Make available to all users the connection will be available also on the console. Are you talking about clicking ... when in X then? How does that solve the problem when X does not work? Can the Network Manager be controlled/started/configured in console mode when X is not running? If the answer to the above questions is yes, maybe that setting (making Network Manager work also without X) would be the default! Yes, Network Manager comes with nmcli, so you can control it from command line. For using system settings you might want to check /usr/share/doc/network-manager/README.Debian. All you need is to read the documentation and adjust setup to your needs. There is no one default setup which would fit all. Anyway this is really OT in this thread (if I exclude the fact that FUD against NM is almost same widespread as against systemd). -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: On init in Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Saturday 17 March 2012 10:23 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: I'd like people to think twice before opt-in for systemd. I just taked with a friend working for redhat, and he told me how much he hates it. He told me that if *anything* goes wrong in the boot process, then basically, you're stuck, because the next thing will be waiting forever. That's basically truth with any event based init, and maybe we're just fine with just dependency booting. I think the same. Apart from the, its cool. it is an event based framework, I don't see much value. and anybody who cares about events, could also monitor and act with udev's help. Today, on my typical laptop, boot is not the most important task. It is better to have something well working, fixable (being mere shell scripts and that's what your friend is also pointing). sysvinit serves this purpose well. imo it would be better to have an init system that could serve all the platforms (more or less) that we care about. - -- Given the large number of mailing lists I follow, I request you to CC me in replies for quicker response -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPbIs9AAoJEKY6WKPy4XVpmLwQALp7RUCE2CDtBfO2QehHA42s 1UUbBM7ZlcSvOh54ORQZgTaIHe/F0nockqdNIAXTLW4WJauNeyDZJwe0bvf4cLoh Oior2VF7Vz0TOYh9OrLvBwL9ytfzmbVWC4ruDXQ3xzlfji8vkrldameMzjPb/3he ssXrTD+N18SG36Y+YdpEDwBXQcaXWDkuvve4JYR4PXwXlkQz3EP4kzKmkbFIvGm9 ySqTtRjLrnPnNx9rYh5zMo9PPkhD1AAdVBZXfD3UvHCWiVaxsfXwzLlp276roeyk 9JLIp9sz/tBvQlCkcKlUdbkdnGyjsW9/aXsqgTzyPWhjPeWS2vjBMDWE+GZE0BaR 0cliDb5hvB/qPQqxWDfKhKmyrAjKIHIw/cEGIK7h51+EincQBX8IFcenyKyuHYKL 4hVCDR/dAlNIjhLVcqmqdjKeCdf9TS3iaHUBOFiGFxhvjcfwUX+QnyVTXCAyNyO0 bKatMcr1SRE1+DsOm2z5agPhuVEoepcgWHViMMfR0f5/0MwKSG1sHpmDNnesOBXp XjpkBhDJ26kCWHxAQELS/IDqVJogd9iKp8ouVci1WYB5/H7agsXLWIhSP7IQ9cEq ozzFgTHid/ySiYIrwuR3/tcZgfChmhvjmJ6hSM49/7XeuIYUiXrfzqGgZIv5L7Kx tuSh+/Rqbp6hyZnHdMeO =JEUD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/tieu39xcns@news.researchut.com
Re: On init in Debian
Timo Juhani Lindfors, le Fri 23 Mar 2012 14:15:00 +0200, a écrit : Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes: the particular script that poses problem. With a deamon like systemd, it's rather all-or-nothing. This gives me the impression that systemd would be a single monolithic binary but isn't vconsole-setup.c that you mention actually part of a small helper binary at /lib/systemd/systemd-vconsole-setup? You didn't quote what I said just after that: Of course, systemd can probably be made to do such kind of isolation of the start bits, to isolate the problem and work on it. That's still more involved to work on than when dealing with mere shell scripts. And indeed, vconsole-setup.c has to be recompiled to fix it. Of course, console-setup is usually not so critical, but it's just an example. And if you suspect that an upgrade broke something you probably can get an older version of this binary with debsnap and then systemctl restart systemd-vconsole-setup.service to test it. That's what I meant by isolation of the start bits. It's still more involved to deal with the C code than with a shell script. You need to find out of to rebuild it, for a start... Samuel -- 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/20120323161822.gl6...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Re: On init in Debian
Roger Leigh, le Fri 23 Mar 2012 10:44:31 +, a écrit : Debugging the core sysvinit or systemd code does require programming expertise, but it only needs doing once. Once it's tested and known to work well, the chance of a user running into problems with it is very small. In the case of systemd, it is not so small, since it reimplements in C a lot of things that were previously done as shell scripts. Samuel -- 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/20120323161956.gm6...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Re: On init in Debian
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf r...@researchut.com wrote: Today, on my typical laptop, boot is not the most important task. It is better to have something well working, fixable (being mere shell scripts and that's what your friend is also pointing). sysvinit serves this purpose well. booting is just one of the things systemd/upstart changes. I was working with a daemon yesterday (conserver-server, FWIW) and I performed: invoke-rc.d conserver-server restart This did not *successfully* restart the daemon. The daemon spawned some ssh tunnels. These were forked off and had a parent PID of 1, did not terminate, and caused a the daemon to not start correctly. It is my understanding that systemd (not sure about upstart) would correctly handle scenarios like this (by using cgroups.) Switching gears... If systemd becomes as widespread as pulseaudio (is becoming), we may not have much of a choice about using it or not using it. If a critical mass of upstreams use it, we will be somewhat forced to use it. In 3-5 years instead of talking about sysvinit replacements and the mechanics involved, we will be talking about how to retrofit our packages to work around (or without) systemd. Cheers, -matt zagrabelny -- 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/caolfk3wjmrcomksb4quq5w7fuqmlbx08+++nafebxyjkgcp...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Re: On init in Debian
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:56:49AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Please let's not forget that this is not about systemd: we have not even started yet the flame war to decide if we should use systemd or upstart. Well, In find the overall reception of systemd in upstream projects and the current state of upstart in Debian quite convincing. The current state of upstart in Debian is a reflection of the upstart maintainers' respect for Debian and desire to not destabilize the distribution by triggering an avalanche of package conversions that could quickly take us past the point of no return for bit rot of our init scripts. If there's a consensus in Debian that we should just push it in and Damn The Ports, well, we could certainly do that. Alternatively, instead of thousands of words being wasted in this thread, interested DDs could help with finalizing the Policy change for how upstart jobs should coexist with sysvinit scripts on the system. Even OpenSUSE who were about to switch to upstart cut the corner and go with systemd now. Whereas there's no indication that RHEL is switching away from upstart. I'm not sure why Debian should regard OpenSUSE as an opinion leader when picking its core technologies. Or am I the only one who remembers YaST? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
Steve Langasek wrote: The current state of upstart in Debian is a reflection of the upstart maintainers' respect for Debian and desire to not destabilize the distribution by triggering an avalanche of package conversions that could quickly take us past the point of no return for bit rot of our init scripts. While systemd has been introduced without such destabilization... Whereas there's no indication that RHEL is switching away from upstart. Really? Fedora switching to systemd and Red Had employees adding systemd-dependent features to other projects doesn't indicate anything whatsoever? IMO your upstart advocacy and anti-systemd FUD crosses the line between having your own opinions and having your own facts. -- 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/1332527357.25977.89.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
Re: On init in Debian
On Friday, March 23, 2012 12:05:28, Matt Zagrabelny wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf r...@researchut.com wrote: Today, on my typical laptop, boot is not the most important task. It is better to have something well working, fixable (being mere shell scripts and that's what your friend is also pointing). sysvinit serves this purpose well. booting is just one of the things systemd/upstart changes. I was working with a daemon yesterday (conserver-server, FWIW) and I performed: invoke-rc.d conserver-server restart This did not *successfully* restart the daemon. The daemon spawned some ssh tunnels. These were forked off and had a parent PID of 1, did not terminate, and caused a the daemon to not start correctly. It is my understanding that systemd (not sure about upstart) would correctly handle scenarios like this (by using cgroups.) It sounds like systemd would handle this via Unix socket handling, starting the ssh daemon and giving it the Unix socket that systemd had already pre- allocated for it. And because the Unix socket for ssh was pre-allocated before starting any of the daemons, the spawned conserver ssh tunnels would also connect to it and simply be on hold waiting for the ssh daemon to communicate. IMHO this is the feature of systemd that sounds the most interesting. systemd would start conserver-server in its own cgroup, and any child processes of conserver-server would also be in that cgroup, so the ssh tunnels would be within that cgroup [and not with the ssh daemon]. This allows for a way for an administrator to kill all of the processes associated with conserver-server without having to resort to killall ssh. Switching gears... If systemd becomes as widespread as pulseaudio (is becoming), we may not have much of a choice about using it or not using it. If a critical mass of upstreams use it, we will be somewhat forced to use it. In 3-5 years instead of talking about sysvinit replacements and the mechanics involved, we will be talking about how to retrofit our packages to work around (or without) systemd. Right now the situation may be somewhat reversed, because in the general case, daemons need to be patched to work correctly with systemd. [It's been a year since the video, so perhaps some or many of them have been updated.] But to answer your concern, someone said it best during one of the talks during DebConf10: Debian is software, and software can be changed. i.e there's no reason to fear, regardless of which direction is chosen. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- 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/201203231507.42375.chris.kna...@coredump.us
Re: On init in Debian
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 20:43 -0300, Fernando Lemos wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Svante Signell svante.sign...@telia.com wrote: Please, don't make things unbearably complicated in case something breaks!!! Network *should* work also in console mode... Looking forward to the which nasty bugs in the future are caused by systemd/upstart! Wow. You *clearly* don't know how NM, upstart, or systemd work, and you don't want to put any effort into learning. And that's ok. But it doesn't mean NM, upstart or systemd are any more complicated than the technology they aim to replace. I'm not afraid of learning new things, I'm a teacher and researcher as a profession. The real problem is: why waste time on something that is linux only, be it systemd or upstart, if it is not portable, or even has the chance to be. I think GNU is the right organization to handle matters like this, at least if the target is free (as in copyleft) software. If not, I think Debian is on the wrong track compared to its social contract ... -- 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/1332538414.2770.8.camel@x60
Re: On init in Debian
On 23.03.2012 20:07, Chris Knadle wrote: Right now the situation may be somewhat reversed, because in the general case, daemons need to be patched to work correctly with systemd. This is simply not true. Only if you want to use socket activation, you need to patch your daemon. But socket activation support is entirely optional. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
On Friday, March 23, 2012 18:26:37, Michael Biebl wrote: On 23.03.2012 20:07, Chris Knadle wrote: Right now the situation may be somewhat reversed, because in the general case, daemons need to be patched to work correctly with systemd. This is simply not true. Only if you want to use socket activation, you need to patch your daemon. But socket activation support is entirely optional. Lennart Pottering during his talk said that daemons needed to be patched to fully work with systemd, but didn't say specifically what they needed to be patched for. If he had qualified it, I would have. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- 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/201203231859.52390.chris.kna...@coredump.us
Re: On init in Debian
On 23.03.2012 23:59, Chris Knadle wrote: Lennart Pottering during his talk said that daemons needed to be patched to fully work with systemd, but didn't say specifically what they needed to be patched for. If he had qualified it, I would have. Can you provide any references? -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
On Friday, March 23, 2012 19:06:48, Michael Biebl wrote: On 23.03.2012 23:59, Chris Knadle wrote: Lennart Pottering during his talk said that daemons needed to be patched to fully work with systemd, but didn't say specifically what they needed to be patched for. If he had qualified it, I would have. Can you provide any references? I already did in a previous email -- the same video On Friday, March 23, 2012 00:14:16, Chris Knadle wrote: ... There's an hour-long talk [1] the same guy gave at LinuxConf in Australia last March, which I found informative. This is linked to from [2], where there is also a link to a PDF of the slides. [1] https://blip.tv/linuxconfau/beyond-init-systemd-4715015 [2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- 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/201203231920.49960.chris.kna...@coredump.us
Re: On init in Debian
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 06:59:52PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: On Friday, March 23, 2012 18:26:37, Michael Biebl wrote: On 23.03.2012 20:07, Chris Knadle wrote: Right now the situation may be somewhat reversed, because in the general case, daemons need to be patched to work correctly with systemd. This is simply not true. Only if you want to use socket activation, you need to patch your daemon. But socket activation support is entirely optional. Lennart Pottering during his talk said that daemons needed to be patched to fully work with systemd, Where fully work implies socket activation, AIUI. Michael -- 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/20120323232310.gl23...@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
Re: On init in Debian
On Friday, March 23, 2012 19:23:11, Michael Banck wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 06:59:52PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: On Friday, March 23, 2012 18:26:37, Michael Biebl wrote: On 23.03.2012 20:07, Chris Knadle wrote: Right now the situation may be somewhat reversed, because in the general case, daemons need to be patched to work correctly with systemd. This is simply not true. Only if you want to use socket activation, you need to patch your daemon. But socket activation support is entirely optional. Lennart Pottering during his talk said that daemons needed to be patched to fully work with systemd, Where fully work implies socket activation, AIUI. Yes it looks like the normal calls to socket() listen() and bind() that would normally be used are replaced by a single call to sd_listen_fds(), and if the call to sd_listen_fds() returns 1 then the fallback is to use the standard function calls to socket() listen() and bind() again. http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activation.html -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- 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/201203231940.25912.chris.kna...@coredump.us
Re: On init in Debian
Whereas there's no indication that RHEL is switching away from upstart. I'm not sure why Debian should regard OpenSUSE as an opinion leader when picking its core technologies. When it comes to the boot system we have collaborated quite a lot with Werner Fink who is SuSE/OpenSuSE affiliated with sysvinit/insserv startpar, it would be wise of those who work on Debian's boot system to at least take note of what direction OpenSuSE takes and consider if we may have the opportunity to collaborate further when adopting new boot system technologies. Kel -- 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/201203241307.22627@otaku42.de
Re: On init in Debian
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Common init scripts are short enough to make them easy to debug. Its more annoying when these shellscripts call other shellscripts which call other shellscripts - but that is a different issue which needs to be solved - but not necessarily in the init system. However debugging shell scripts is only easy if you already are a shell-script and sysvinit expert already. When a non-expert opens say /etc/init.d/ssh, figuring out what went wrong is not going to be easy. Sure systemd is unfamiliar and daunting now, but there is no reason to believe the people who have learned howto handle sysvinit scripts wouldn't learn systemd. In fact, if the systemd configuration files describe typical idioms of services well enough, it will be easier to learn than the spagethi sysvinit scripts sometimes end up being. Riku -- 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/20120322102045.ga20...@afflict.kos.to
Re: On init in Debian
Riku Voipio, le Thu 22 Mar 2012 12:20:45 +0200, a écrit : On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Common init scripts are short enough to make them easy to debug. Its more annoying when these shellscripts call other shellscripts which call other shellscripts - but that is a different issue which needs to be solved - but not necessarily in the init system. However debugging shell scripts is only easy if you already are a shell-script and sysvinit expert already. When a non-expert opens say /etc/init.d/ssh, figuring out what went wrong is not going to be easy. Sure systemd is unfamiliar and daunting now, but there is no reason to believe the people who have learned howto handle sysvinit scripts wouldn't learn systemd. In fact, if the systemd configuration files describe typical idioms of services well enough, it will be easier to learn than the spagethi sysvinit scripts sometimes end up being. One big difference, however, is that when your system is screwed, you might however still have an editor. Rebuilding a systemd is a bit more involved, you probably don't even have a compiler on your production system... Samuel -- 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/20120322103809.gi4...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Re: On init in Debian
]] Samuel Thibault One big difference, however, is that when your system is screwed, you might however still have an editor. Rebuilding a systemd is a bit more involved, you probably don't even have a compiler on your production system... Why would you need a compiler to edit a systemd unit file? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/87ehsk98yb@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: On init in Debian
Tollef Fog Heen, le Thu 22 Mar 2012 12:22:20 +0100, a écrit : One big difference, however, is that when your system is screwed, you might however still have an editor. Rebuilding a systemd is a bit more involved, you probably don't even have a compiler on your production system... Why would you need a compiler to edit a systemd unit file? Because the issue at stake might lie in systemd itself, not the unit file. Samuel -- 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/20120322121636.gj4...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Re: On init in Debian
On Mar 22, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote: Because the issue at stake might lie in systemd itself, not the unit file. While obviously the C components of other init systems are bug free. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On init in Debian
Marco d'Itri writes (Re: On init in Debian): On Mar 22, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote: Because the issue at stake might lie in systemd itself, not the unit file. While obviously the C components of other init systems are bug free. They are enormously smaller, so any bug is much less likely to be in the C portion. (And an implementation of similar functionality in C is likely to be more buggy than an implementation in another language given suitable primitives.) This is for me a major reason not to like systemd. Ian. -- 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/20331.8070.334302.419...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: On init in Debian
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org writes: Because the issue at stake might lie in systemd itself, not the unit file. And if /bin/sh breaks on an init style system, you can fix it with an editor? -- Stig Sandbeck Mathisen s...@debian.org -- 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/7xsjh0izjw@fsck.linpro.no
