Bug#727708: upstadt vs. systemd: events vs. dependencies
❦ 21 janvier 2014 14:00 CET, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org : At this point of the discussion, stating that one aspect didn't get the attention it should get. sounds a lot like I didn't bother to search the archives. :-) The fact that Upstart's proponents didn't outline important bugs in Upstart may also been seen as one aspect didn't get the attention it should get. In the different final positions of the TC in favor of Upstart, we don't see mentions of those important bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/516713 https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/447654 https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/406397 As Matthias, I wanted to point those out since a long time: how can we choose Upstart when there are critical bugs that remain unfixed for years? I particularly hate the last one that bite me several times: you make one mistake (expect fork instead of expect daemon) and you need to either reboot your system or know this script: https://github.com/ion1/workaround-upstart-snafu Colin proposed to never use expect fork and expect daemon, but they exist and our users will write Upstart jobs to start their scripts, daemons, workers, etc. -- /* Am I fucking pedantic or what? */ 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#727708: upstadt vs. systemd: events vs. dependencies
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:36:50AM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: I particularly hate the last one that bite me several times: you make one mistake (expect fork instead of expect daemon) and you need to either reboot your system or know this script: https://github.com/ion1/workaround-upstart-snafu Colin proposed to never use expect fork and expect daemon, but they exist and our users will write Upstart jobs to start their scripts, daemons, workers, etc. Allow me to elaborate slightly: my preference here would be to change all existing jobs so that those two expect verbs are no longer needed, and then compile them entirely out of Upstart. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#727708: upstadt vs. systemd: events vs. dependencies
Hi, in this debate, enlightening *ahem* as it was, I think that one aspect didn't get the attention it should get. (IMHO.) systemd uses dependencies. Upstart uses events. Dependencies are static. My job's dependencies are either fulfilled, or not. This means that troubleshooting is easy -- I can simply look at the prerequisites and fix whatever is broken, bootup then continues by itself. Events are dynamic. In order to debug a problem, one needs to know what happened and in which order. If a job does not start, maybe the event did not happen -- or it happened too early, or too late, or it's blocked internally. Yes, upstart does that. I would like to refer interested parties to two Launchpad bugs, https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/516713 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/447654, which (despite being three and four years old, respectively) remain unfixed. They show quite clearly, IHMO, that upstart's model does not work in the real world, and/or that its development has stalled. This would be enough reason for me to choose systemd, even if I were to disregard all the other features of systemd which upstart does not have (like the journal, or socket activation that actually works). I would therefore like to ask the TC to select systemd. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#727708: upstadt vs. systemd: events vs. dependencies
On 21/01/14 at 12:27 +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, in this debate, enlightening *ahem* as it was, I think that one aspect didn't get the attention it should get. (IMHO.) systemd uses dependencies. Upstart uses events. This was already discussed in the following subthreads: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/11/msg00021.html 2.3 in https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/msg00234.html http://lists.debian.org/20131231025545.ga23...@riva.ucam.org (search for event) the subthread starting with http://lists.debian.org/87sit9puow@windlord.stanford.edu is also about that. As well as http://lists.debian.org/20131231032827.GA14382@leaf and http://lists.debian.org/52c28387.488b440a.0457.5...@mx.google.com and http://lists.debian.Org/CAJS_LCUGaM6JS8Ec-73z30+_h8yW+HqSqfqVvHVh=ykpqn+...@mail.gmail.com (and its sub-thread) Also, http://lists.debian.org/7y52zuuaw@vostro.rath.org At this point of the discussion, stating that one aspect didn't get the attention it should get. sounds a lot like I didn't bother to search the archives. :-) - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
