FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-14-2011, 11:57 AM
Petter Reinholdtsen
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

[Marco Amadori]
> I think it would be interesting for wheezy to easely permit an Admin
> to choose an alternate init system

Sound like a good idea, if it do not give the Debian project a lot of
unneeded work.

> and to permit to package maintainer to carefully provide init script
> tailored for a particular system of interest.

Personally, I believe it the last point is a bad idea. Asking package
maintainers to provide boot setup for several boot systems is going to
leave some of these setups to slowly decay as only the one used by the
package maintainer will get proper testing.

I believe we need to come up with a way where most or all package
maintainers (perhaps those handling kernel events and early boot stuff
should be expected) only need to maintain one boot setup for their
package, and this boot setup should be used by all the different boot
systems.

Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 2fl62smkc42.fsf@login2.uio.no">http://lists.debian.org/2fl62smkc42.fsf@login2.uio.no
 
Old 02-14-2011, 01:38 PM
Tollef Fog Heen
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

]] Petter Reinholdtsen

| I believe we need to come up with a way where most or all package
| maintainers (perhaps those handling kernel events and early boot stuff
| should be expected) only need to maintain one boot setup for their
| package, and this boot setup should be used by all the different boot
| systems.

That would mean limiting each init system to the limitations of the most
limited init system, which would be a sad state of affairs. Also, I
don't believe there's a 1:1 correspondence between the semantics of all
the different init systems, making this a very hard if not impossible
job.

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87y65iel60.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com">http://lists.debian.org/87y65iel60.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
 
Old 02-14-2011, 02:32 PM
Joachim Breitner
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

Hi,

Am Montag, den 14.02.2011, 13:57 +0100 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
> I believe we need to come up with a way where most or all package
> maintainers (perhaps those handling kernel events and early boot stuff
> should be expected) only need to maintain one boot setup for their
> package, and this boot setup should be used by all the different boot
> systems.

a way like metainit? http://wiki.debian.org/MetaInit

The project died some two or three years ago and anyone is welcome to
try to revive it.

Greetings,
Joachim

--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
 
Old 02-14-2011, 03:05 PM
Olaf van der Spek
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:
> ]] Petter Reinholdtsen
>
> | I believe we need to come up with a way where most or all package
> | maintainers (perhaps those handling kernel events and early boot stuff
> | should be expected) only need to maintain one boot setup for their
> | package, and this boot setup should be used by all the different boot
> | systems.
>
> That would mean limiting each init system to the limitations of the most
> limited init system, which would be a sad state of affairs. *Also, I

Most isn't all. IMO there's way too much code duplication in current
init scripts. Most daemons are pretty standard and shouldn't need any
special code in their init script.


--
Olaf


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: AANLkTimzA__j14YXHh-7hq7kbKQG-vKVoWCeVA2EFwCJ@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTimzA__j14YXHh-7hq7kbKQG-vKVoWCeVA2EFwCJ@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 02-14-2011, 03:14 PM
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> That would mean limiting each init system to the limitations of the most
> limited init system, which would be a sad state of affairs. Also, I

Yes. So, we also have to set where we want the low bar.

> don't believe there's a 1:1 correspondence between the semantics of all
> the different init systems, making this a very hard if not impossible
> job.

Basically, anything that is not capable of doing _at least_ all that sysv-rc
can do is still missing required features.

We must first get to the point where the sysv-rc/startpar combination IS the
most limited initsystem (removing or fixing anything that is actually more
limited than sysv-rc+startpar).

After that, we will be better able to see the way forward.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110214161412.GB7545@khazad-dum.debian.net">http://lists.debian.org/20110214161412.GB7545@khazad-dum.debian.net
 
Old 02-14-2011, 03:26 PM
Salvo Tomaselli
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

> a way like metainit? http://wiki.debian.org/MetaInit
>
> The project died some two or three years ago and anyone is welcome to
> try to revive it.
Mh it claims it would work only for simple scripts, not for any kind of
scripts, so not all the packages could be converted.

Bye
--
Salvo Tomaselli
 
Old 02-14-2011, 05:26 PM
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

On Feb 14, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:

> That would mean limiting each init system to the limitations of the most
> limited init system, which would be a sad state of affairs. Also, I
> don't believe there's a 1:1 correspondence between the semantics of all
> the different init systems, making this a very hard if not impossible
> job.
Agreed. If there is no or little improvement over sysv-rc then we can as
well save the time needed for such a big change.
I am even unsure that it's worth supporting more than one init package.

--
ciao,
Marco
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:59 PM
Marco Amadori
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

On Monday 14 February 2011 20:55:06 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

> | I believe we need to come up with a way where most or all package
> | maintainers (perhaps those handling kernel events and early boot stuff
> | should be expected) only need to maintain one boot setup for their
> | package, and this boot setup should be used by all the different boot
> | systems.

> That would mean limiting each init system to the limitations of the most
> limited init system, which would be a sad state of affairs. Also, I
> don't believe there's a 1:1 correspondence between the semantics of all
> the different init systems, making this a very hard if not impossible
> job.

I was about to replying exactly that, only not so well written :-)

In addiction to that, generally speaking, I was asking two things, one was if
a policy could emerge to sort the init issues, the other point is regarding
debhelper, maybe should I file a bug for the problem of debhelper hiding the
sysvinit script if an upstart job is available?

I have some doubts because the two questions are related and it is not
properly a bug, more a wanted design derived from an hint as it is now.

--
ESC:wq


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201102142059.53736.marco.amadori@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/201102142059.53736.marco.amadori@gmail.com
 
Old 02-14-2011, 07:02 PM
Marco Amadori
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

On Monday 14 February 2011 21:00:09 Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:
> > ]] Petter Reinholdtsen
> >
> > | I believe we need to come up with a way where most or all package
> > | maintainers (perhaps those handling kernel events and early boot stuff
> > | should be expected) only need to maintain one boot setup for their
> > | package, and this boot setup should be used by all the different boot
> > | systems.
> >
> > That would mean limiting each init system to the limitations of the most
> > limited init system, which would be a sad state of affairs. Also, I
>
> Most isn't all. IMO there's way too much code duplication in current
> init scripts. Most daemons are pretty standard and shouldn't need any
> special code in their init script.

The problem is that they may, not that they should have different initscripts
for different init system.

The best of two worlds would be having a sane defaults for any initscript out
there from a common source but that a package maintainer could choose to
carefully write customized init script for the differents init systems.

--
ESC:wq


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201102142102.11806.marco.amadori@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/201102142102.11806.marco.amadori@gmail.com
 
Old 02-14-2011, 08:56 PM
Tollef Fog Heen
 
Default Upstart and sysvinit in packages - Policy needed

]] Henrique de Moraes Holschuh

| On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > That would mean limiting each init system to the limitations of the most
| > limited init system, which would be a sad state of affairs. Also, I
|
| Yes. So, we also have to set where we want the low bar.

I'd rather prefer a solution where we either choose a single more
capable init system going forward or we say that any init script system
must support sysvinit scripts as well as having native jobs (be upstart
or systemd) being able to mask sysvinit jobs of the same name. This
would allow for improvements without being kept back to the extent we
are today.

| > don't believe there's a 1:1 correspondence between the semantics of all
| > the different init systems, making this a very hard if not impossible
| > job.
|
| Basically, anything that is not capable of doing _at least_ all that sysv-rc
| can do is still missing required features.

Agreed. Do we know which, if any, are at that level?

| We must first get to the point where the sysv-rc/startpar combination IS the
| most limited initsystem (removing or fixing anything that is actually more
| limited than sysv-rc+startpar).

Must we?

I'd like to get rid of the solutions that no longer fit, but at the same
time, having to first remove whatever solutions exist today seems
unnecessary for deciding on the road forward.

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87y65icmav.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com">http://lists.debian.org/87y65icmav.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org