On 04/26/12 01:57, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:03:19 +0800
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
>> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
>> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job done,
>> but it's not superawesome. There's things like init script dependencies that
>> would be nice to have, but then it's about the smallest of all init systems
>> around.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Patrick Lauer
>>
>> Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for your explanation. However, I sense a confusion regarding an init
> system and a boot process. AFAIU openrc still uses /sbin/init
Yes and no, we only use sysvinit to trigger the "we are booting" and "we
are changing runlevel" events. To quote /etc/inittab:

l1:1:wait:/sbin/rc single
l2:2:wait:/sbin/rc nonetwork
l3:3:wait:/sbin/rc default


> -- the daemons/services are handled through a set of (ba)sh scripts.
most of the logic is posix sh, the dependency resolution and some other
bits are C.

> From what
> I learn from systemd documentation, all services are handled by one daemon --
> dependencies, tracking, etc. are a natural bonus, so to say.
... why should that be a daemon? (And what happens in the unlikely event
that the supercomplexified PID #1 self-terminates? I think there's a
very good set of reasons why sysvinit's "init" is very small and simple ...)

> Although I also
> dislike the idea of systemd-{journald,logind,...}, as long as those things are
> implemented via modules, I don't think they are "bloat". So IMO the only
> negative thing in arch's adoption of systemd is that rc.conf will have to go
> away
Yes. It's redundant
In the end our runlevels are just symlinks to the init scripts in
/etc/init.d and managed with the rc-update / rc-config / rc-status
tools. "rc-update add squid default; rc" is such a boring way to add a
service to the default runlevel and start it ... and once you get hooked
on rc-status you'll be wondering why you didn't have it before.

About modules and bloat - for systemd you're going from a few hundred
lines of shell to a few hundred thousand lines of mandatory
dependencies. There's so many exciting ways you could accidentally
trigger a bug in that, it goes against my philosophy that computers
should be boring and doesn't let me be lazy. It does have a few decent
ideas (like CGroups - which ended up taking me an afternoon to get
initially patched into OpenRC) but at the cost of a rather hostile
upstream that likes writing code more than anything and goes in a
direction that makes some of us very much not happy, especially as it
now corrupts other unrelated projects like udev (oh, systemd-udevd) and
syslog-ng (haha, you get journald now!) and so on. Oh well.

Take care,

Patrick

在 2012年4月25日 下�10:03，Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> 写�：
> Greetings,
>
...
>
> Should you decide to switch (or just evaluate if switching is possible /
> makes sense) you'll get full support from us in migrating init scripts
> and figuring out all the nontrivial changes. Just visit us on IRC (
> #openrc on irc.freenode.net), send us a mail ( openrc@gentoo.org ) or
> meet us for a beer or two.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
>
> Patrick Lauer
>
> Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer
>
>
I am a 2 years Gentoo user and than switch to Arch for about 3 years.
I just think OpenRC does not have too much difference with Arch's
current init system.

Any way, Arch is open to any change. But if you want to propose the
switch, the best way is to make it happen by effort of yourself.

Here is the action taken by people who propose systemd:
1. Make systemd package easily available. First as AUR package, then
official package in the repo.
2. Have a quit good bbs thread and answer every users question quickly.
3. Create a good Wiki page https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd.
And now more and more users are switching to systemd, including me.

People who propose OpenRC should do the same or even better then
systemd and win more users. Recently systemd is gradually getting
momentum. So hurry up. Competition is always a good thing.

Leon Feng

Hi,

The 25/04/12, Patrick Lauer wrote:

> As an alternative to the One Process For Everything I'd like to ask you to evalute OpenRC as an init system for Arch Linux.

<...>

> While Gentoo is by far the largest user it's definitely not the only one
> - there are the direct derivatives (Sabayon, pentoo, funtoo,
> sysrescuecd, tinhat, ...) and some "foreign" users (Alpine, a debian
> derivative, uses OpenRC)

Alpine is highly dedicated to small systems with few physical resources
which makes the reference not much relevant.

> Should you decide to switch (or just evaluate if switching is possible /
> makes sense) you'll get full support from us in migrating init scripts
> and figuring out all the nontrivial changes. Just visit us on IRC (
> #openrc on irc.freenode.net), send us a mail ( openrc@gentoo.org ) or
> meet us for a beer or two.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
>
> Patrick Lauer
>
> Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer

I wouldn't expect anything else from a OpenRC maintainer to support his
tool to be used on other platforms. :-)

But to be fair, you should say that the future of OpenRC is NOT certain
in Gentoo at least, and as a consequence in all of the forked projects.

Please all, take a look at:
- http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=130929913506375&w=4
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219
- http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=132538362810246&w=4

Gentoo might make systemd the default init system in the future. Nobody
can say if and when this could heppen but this is clearly possible for
OpenRC to become a Gentoo init system _alternative_.

This is why I think that switching to OpenRC *now* would be wrong.

--
Nicolas Sebrecht

The 25/04/12, Calvin Morrison wrote:

> > I like our current situation as we have an
> >extremely simple init system and users can drop in systemd if they so
> >choose.

I like our current situation as we have an
extremely simple init system and users can drop in //OpenRC// if they so
choose.

> +1
>
> Arch follows the nice KISS principle and a bit of DIY. We should
> have default a simple and sane system that works, and if anyone
> feels the need to install some crazy new fangled type, they can go
> ahead.
>
> OpenRC works well in Gentoo, i don't see why it would not work well here.

So, OpenRC could be proposed as an alternative init system in AUR.

--
Nicolas Sebrecht

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> About modules and bloat - for systemd you're going from a few hundred
> lines of shell to a few hundred thousand lines of mandatory
> dependencies.

I have no idea where you get these numbers from, or why they should matter.

> but at the cost of a rather hostile
> upstream

I do not have this impression at all. systemd devs certainly have been
very open to all the suggestions I have made to make it work better on
Arch.

> that likes writing code more than anything and goes in a
> direction that makes some of us very much not happy, especially as it
> now corrupts other unrelated projects like udev (oh, systemd-udevd) and
> syslog-ng (haha, you get journald now!) and so on

This does not make sense. udev still works the same on systemd-less
systems and syslog-ng works just fine with (or without) systemd.

I am very happy that you are trying to educate us about OpenRC, but if
you are going to attack systemd please get your facts straight and
refrain from spreading unsubstantiated FUD.

-t

On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Kaiting Chen wrote:

> The problem I have with a systemd like init system is that it's way too
> much overkill for a server. I like our current situation as we have an
> extremely simple init system and users can drop in systemd if they so
> choose. --Kaiting.
>


I concur. For my purposes the Arch init system isn't broken.

For the arch init, even dependencies aren't too big a deal given that the linear way system services are defined in rc.conf, though I know it's been an important feature in other init systems. Having the arch init with systemd as an option if it's needed or wanted is great, but I can imagine trying to keep two init systems in mind while maintaining could get nightmarish.


-Sam

On 04/25/2012 10:25 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> While dependencies (done in the right way) might have been nice to
> have, I don't see this as a major shortcoming of our current system,
> and if we are to change away from initscripts the replacement would
> have to provide significantly better benefits than that, in my humble
> opinion.

KISS - If it "ain't" broke, don't fix it.... I'm sure some may have needs that
exceed what the current initscripts can provide, the simple efficient Arch way
has done, and continues to do, quite well.

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

When I first saw the topic, I thought "yet another systemd-like piece
of crap?" Then I read that this is from Gentoo and the rest of the
original post and I think it could be nice and I could even switch to
it one day. But do you actually need to bother with runlevels or is
it like arch (everything in $DAEMONS goes to 3 and 5, and 5 can be set
for X through inittab)?

--
Kwpolska <http://kwpolska.tk>
stop html mail * * *| always bottom-post
www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
GPG KEY: 5EAAEA16 * | Arch Linux x86_64, zsh, mutt, vim.
# vim:set textwidth=70:

On 25-04-12 16:03, Patrick Lauer wrote:

Greetings,


[init, systemd]



As an alternative to the One Process For Everything I'd like to ask
you to evalute OpenRC as an init system for Arch Linux.


Possibly a stupid idea and probably OT, but i was just thinking; as
systemd appears to take off more and more, how about parsing the unit
files it uses in OpenRC?


I really like the simplicity of the current init scripts, but i could
imagine systemd taking over at some point. It would be very nice to have
an alternative in that case.
If OpenRC could be made to use the same config files (or at least, the
daemon-specific files) then it could very well be a nice alternative
whilst keeping it simple for the developers.


But for the moment, i prefer the current Arch Init system. Coming from a
debian background, this was the first thing I noticed and came to love
in Arch. Pacman was a close second .



mvg,
Guus

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:49:26 +0200
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:

> Gentoo might make systemd the default init system in the future. Nobody
> can say if and when this could heppen but this is clearly possible for
> OpenRC to become a Gentoo init system _alternative_.
>
> This is why I think that switching to OpenRC *now* would be wrong.

I doubt it would get onto Hardened Gentoo.

So in order to gain a slight speed increase in booting, which can be
done in other ways (Alpine boots faster than any systemd enabled
system). Please give me examples of any other valuable benefits.

We are going to sacrifice, simplicity, amount of code to look for bugs
and most importantly, ease of troubleshooting. One of the beauties of
Unix is the error information. Aren't they all going to be mixed
together on systemd. Imagine if all drivers loaded at once. Ughh Would
many resort to Windows style trial and error more often.


p.s. I'm sure many will disagree on this seperate point but whilst I
like the pretty startup and colors of arch, I have been annoyed in the
past whilst being used to OpenBSD that I have to look at many files for
pacman and functions.sh etc.. If there's a bug I need to fix, I prefer
not to have to dig around and prefer to know it's somewhere right in
front of my eyeballs without thinking about what tab in my editor I'm
on, the sames true to me of overuse of inline functions. Code
location sporadity and use of binary files seems annoyingly on the
increase (not Arches fault).


OpenBSD has several files and recently a directory as part of init.
They have tried to keep this to as few as possible in case the user
wants to lock it down, it has other great benefits. This simplicity
surely fits with Arch.