If I understand correctly, the current Ubuntu version 1.4-0ubuntu8
works perfectly for Debian. Is there any reason to not upload this
version to Debian?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120221130641.8560771dm371on9t@webmail.in-berlin.de">http://lists.debian.org/20120221130641.8560771dm371on9t@webmail.in-berlin.de

On 02/21/2012 08:06 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the current Ubuntu version 1.4-0ubuntu8
> works perfectly for Debian. Is there any reason to not upload this
> version to Debian?
>
>
I always wondered: what's the point in having upstart in
Debian, when we don't really use it?

Please enlighten me...

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F43E10A.2050309@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4F43E10A.2050309@debian.org

On Feb 21, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:

> On 02/21/2012 08:06 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
>> If I understand correctly, the current Ubuntu version 1.4-0ubuntu8
>> works perfectly for Debian. Is there any reason to not upload this
>> version to Debian?
>>
>>
> I always wondered: what's the point in having upstart in
> Debian, when we don't really use it?

Debian has a history for providing a variety of packages with similar functionality and leave the choice up to the user.

However, with systemd at the horizon, I don't see a need in supporting it either. Ubuntu will probably make the switch in near future as well.

Adrian

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 8FDF8775-E1F2-45B3-853D-D01E3DD129F9@physik.fu-berlin.de">http://lists.debian.org/8FDF8775-E1F2-45B3-853D-D01E3DD129F9@physik.fu-berlin.de

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:56:02PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:

> Debian has a history for providing a variety of packages with similar
> functionality and leave the choice up to the user.

> However, with systemd at the horizon, I don't see a need in supporting it
> either. Ubuntu will probably make the switch in near future as well.

I don't know what gives you that impression.

--
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 Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120221195912.GA2132@virgil.dodds.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120221195912.GA2132@virgil.dodds.net

On Feb 21, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Steve Langasek wroteebian has a history for providing a variety of packages with similar
functionality and leave the choice up to the user.

However, with systemd at the horizon, I don't see a need in supporting it
either. *Ubuntu will probably make the switch in near future as well.

I don't know what gives you that impression.

From my impression, systemd seems way more functional and*well-designedthan*upstart. It is - more or less - a clone of Apple's launchd with its socket-basedactivation and the capability to replace whole init bash scripts with internal code.
There is a discussion about it here [1].
Adrian
[1]*http://undacuvabrutha.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/why-ubuntu-should-continue-with-upstart-for-11-10/

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
> On Feb 21, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:

>> I don't know what gives you that impression.

> From my impression, systemd seems way more functional and well-designed
> than upstart. It is - more or less - a clone of Apple's launchd with its
> socket-based activation and the capability to replace whole init bash
> scripts with internal code.

There have been several previous discussions on debian-devel and in-person
discussions at DebConfs. The short version is that this is far from a
universal position, and there are several people who strongly prefer
upstart over systemd in Debian. I don't know of any intention by Ubuntu
to switch away from upstart.

The most likely way forward is some period where either can be used and we
see how things shake out. Unfortunately, neither currently supports
kFreeBSD. The upstart upstream seems more amenable to doing so than the
systemd upstream.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87fwe4q6g9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87fwe4q6g9.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 09:03:51PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:

> >> Debian has a history for providing a variety of packages with similar
> >> functionality and leave the choice up to the user.

> >> However, with systemd at the horizon, I don't see a need in supporting it
> >> either. Ubuntu will probably make the switch in near future as well.

> > I don't know what gives you that impression.

> From my impression, systemd seems way more functional and well-designed
> than upstart. It is - more or less - a clone of Apple's launchd with its
> socket-based activation and the capability to replace whole init bash
> scripts with internal code.

Yes, I don't know what gives you the impression that Ubuntu agrees with this
assessment and is likely to switch.

What do you know of the upstart design that makes you think systemd's design
is better? The above could be a paraphrase of Lennart's blog, for all it
says about the upstart design.

The meme that systemd is better than upstart because it doesn't depend on
a shell is poppycock. No one has done any benchmarking to support the claim
that /bin/sh is a bottleneck for upstart (particularly not on Debian or
Ubuntu, where /bin/sh is dash, not bash); OTOH, there are plenty of examples
of how the limited use of upstart's built-in support for shell scripts makes
for much more maintainable - and locally-modifiable - startup behavior than
if this were all implemented in C.

> There is a discussion about it here [1].

> [1] http://undacuvabrutha.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/why-ubuntu-should-continue-with-upstart-for-11-10/

Not sure why you think the comments on a blog post by a self-selected group
of users say anything about what Ubuntu is going to do.

--
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 Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

On Feb 21, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:

> What do you know of the upstart design that makes you think systemd's design
> is better? The above could be a paraphrase of Lennart's blog, for all it
> says about the upstart design.

Socket-based activation. It just seems to be the proper way to do it. Not depending
on a bunch of bash scripts to do the proper dependency resolving but seriously
breaking it down to the actual interprocess communication. It just appears
to be the most sensible solution to me.

The socket-based activation also allows to buffer any communication even
when a process like syslogd quits unexpectedly, so no information gets
lost.

> The meme that systemd is better than upstart because it doesn't depend on
> a shell is poppycock. No one has done any benchmarking to support the claim
> that /bin/sh is a bottleneck for upstart (particularly not on Debian or
> Ubuntu, where /bin/sh is dash, not bash);

That is probably true. But I still think that a more consistent and strict
software design is better. The boot process is in most cases more or
less the same, so why not make the init system smarter to simplify the
scripts/configuration files on the user side?

> OTOH, there are plenty of examples
> of how the limited use of upstart's built-in support for shell scripts makes
> for much more maintainable - and locally-modifiable - startup behavior than
> if this were all implemented in C.

The ability to modify the scripts locally might be an advantage for upstart,
yes. But OTOH, how many users actually do that? Usually, you never edit
the provided init scripts but add your own, custom ones. And since systemd still
supports SysV init, this type of customization is still possible.

>> There is a discussion about it here [1].
>
>> [1] http://undacuvabrutha.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/why-ubuntu-should-continue-with-upstart-for-11-10/
>
> Not sure why you think the comments on a blog post by a self-selected group
> of users say anything about what Ubuntu is going to do.

Well, the author of this blog works for Canocical, so I guess he has some
voice when speaking for Ubuntu .

Adrian

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 6592BE2D-825A-46E8-80D0-749ACCAE2343@physik.fu-berlin.de">http://lists.debian.org/6592BE2D-825A-46E8-80D0-749ACCAE2343@physik.fu-berlin.de

On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 22:28 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> >> There is a discussion about it here [1].
> >
> >> [1] http://undacuvabrutha.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/why-ubuntu-should-continue-with-upstart-for-11-10/
> >
> > Not sure why you think the comments on a blog post by a self-selected group
> > of users say anything about what Ubuntu is going to do.
>
> Well, the author of this blog works for Canocical, so I guess he has some
> voice when speaking for Ubuntu .

He might, but that doesn't mean /the people commenting on his blog post/
do. Oh, and I suspect Steve is fully aware of what Robbie's day job
is. ;-)

Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1329860837.4723.12.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org">http://lists.debian.org/1329860837.4723.12.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:28:55PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > What do you know of the upstart design that makes you think systemd's design
> > is better? The above could be a paraphrase of Lennart's blog, for all it
> > says about the upstart design.

> Socket-based activation.

upstart-socket-bridge(8) upstart-socket-bridge(8)

NAME
upstart-socket-bridge - Bridge between Upstart and sockets

DESCRIPTION
The upstart-socket-bridge queries the Upstart init(8) daemon for all
job configurations which start on or stop on the socket event. It then
waits for an incoming connection on each specified socket(7) and when
detected emits the socket event (socket-event (7)), setting a number of
environment variables for the job to query.

Upstart supports socket-based activation just fine. However, there appear
to be a grand total of 0 packages in Ubuntu currently making use of this, in
part because most services require *modifications to upstream code* to
support socket-based activation. inetd just is not the dominant paradigm in
service design anymore; so all those services out there that don't support
passing their socket in as an fd on startup would have to be updated to use
this.

The other reason for packages not making use of this in Ubuntu seems to be
that nothing is actually missing it. Yes, it allows deferred startup of
services that aren't needed as part of boot to desktop, but by and large
this is a bandaid for a more fundamental problem of having servers installed
on your desktop that shouldn't be; and Ubuntu addresses this by just not
shipping unneeded services on the desktop. For the server case,
socket-based activation isn't better, because these jobs *are* the critical
pieces of the boot and waiting until the first request comes in to start
them (and thus having a slow response to that first request) is not
beneficial. And for the edge case of deliberately installing and running
servers on the desktop, well, you have to pick your poison, because neither
approach is going to be a perfect fit for everyone.

> It just seems to be the proper way to do it. Not depending
> on a bunch of bash scripts to do the proper dependency resolving

Strawman. Upstart doesn't use bash scripts, nor are scripts at all involved
in dependency resolution.

> > The meme that systemd is better than upstart because it doesn't depend on
> > a shell is poppycock. No one has done any benchmarking to support the claim
> > that /bin/sh is a bottleneck for upstart (particularly not on Debian or
> > Ubuntu, where /bin/sh is dash, not bash);

> That is probably true. But I still think that a more consistent and strict
> software design is better. The boot process is in most cases more or
> less the same,

That's a gross oversimplification.

> so why not make the init system smarter to simplify the
> scripts/configuration files on the user side?

Please tell me why it would be better to implement the attached upstart job
in C code within pid 1.

--
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 Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
# mounted-run - Populate and link to /run filesystem
#
# Populates the /run filesystem and adds compatibility links to it

description "Populate and link to /run filesystem"

start on mounted MOUNTPOINT=/run TYPE=tmpfs

task

script
: > "/run/utmp"
chmod 664 "/run/utmp"
chgrp utmp "/run/utmp"

# compatibility; should go away soon
[ -d /dev/.initramfs/varrun ] && cp -a /dev/.initramfs/varrun/* /run/ || true

mkdir -p /run/sendsigs.omit.d

# Background the initial motd seeding
[ -d "/etc/update-motd.d" ] && run-parts --lsbsysinit /etc/update-motd.d > /run/motd &
end script