-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

Fedora have upstart as the /sbin/init daemon for a long time, but we
still use the old 'SysVinit' scripts from /etc/rc.d/init.d and fedora
packaging guideline have nothing about upstart.

Is it right for the maintainer to provide *two separate subpackages,
one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
sysinit subpackage?


yum list *-upstart
Loaded plugins: downloadonly, presto, refresh-packagekit
Installed Packages
clamav-scanner-upstart.noarch * *0.96-1403.fc14 * * * *@rawhide
Available Packages
clamav-milter-upstart.noarch * * 0.96-1403.fc14 * * * *rawhide
dhcp-forwarder-upstart.noarch * *0.8-1300.fc13 * * * * rawhide
ip-sentinel-upstart.noarch * * * 0.12-1300.fc13 * * * *rawhide
milter-greylist-upstart.noarch * 4.2.4-1400.fc14 * * * rawhide
tor-upstart.noarch * * * * * * * 0.2.1.25-1400.fc14 * *rawhide

Regards,
Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:13:02PM +0800, Chen Lei wrote:
> Fedora have upstart as the /sbin/init daemon for a long time, but we
> still use the old 'SysVinit' scripts from /etc/rc.d/init.d and fedora
> packaging guideline have nothing about upstart.
>
> Is it right for the maintainer to provide *two separate subpackages,
> one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
> scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
> sysinit subpackage?

In the absence of guidelines, it is certainly right to leave it to
the packager. Now if you want to draft a packaging policy regarding
upstart, I guess it would be welcomed.

That being said, it seems that the new init system, systemd is already in
the pipe. Doing a policy for an obsolete technology may be some time
lost. Maybe even better would be preparing a policy for systemd scripts
than doing a policy for upstart vs sysvinit.

--
Pat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
> That being said, it seems that the new init system, systemd is already in
> the pipe. Doing a policy for an obsolete technology may be some time
> lost. Maybe even better would be preparing a policy for systemd scripts
> than doing a policy for upstart vs sysvinit.


The only issue I really see is the high priority of the upstart
config. Is that deliberately or is that just how it works out because
of the package naming which influences the yum depresolution scoring.
Whatever the reason I'm

The existence of the subpackages aren't strictly a problem
necessarily. But they definitely complicate things....if we want to do
more than just ensure the default init system config is installed on
the system. Even if systemd becomes the default, I doubt upstart is
going to disappear from the repository. Some people are going to want
to use it and some maintainers will support it with native configs.
The question is how do we make sure the correct init file that is
compatible with the init system in use on the system is installed.

Assuming moving forward a maintainer has the option to support
sysinitv, upstart and systemd, what can be done to make sure the
correct init configuration is loaded on the system? Other than
including all the configs in the base package..I'm not sure I have a
useful suggestion for a solution to selection. And even then, if you
have the sysinitv installed side-by-side with the native upstart or
systemd config is that going to cause a conflict?



-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

On Wed, 02.06.10 08:12, Jeff Spaleta (jspaleta@gmail.com) wrote:

> Assuming moving forward a maintainer has the option to support
> sysinitv, upstart and systemd, what can be done to make sure the
> correct init configuration is loaded on the system? Other than
> including all the configs in the base package..I'm not sure I have a
> useful suggestion for a solution to selection. And even then, if you
> have the sysinitv installed side-by-side with the native upstart or
> systemd config is that going to cause a conflict?

Handling this with systemd is very easy: you can just drop in a file in
/etc/init.d/foo *AND* /etc/systemd/system/foo.service from the same
package. And then, if something that is not systemd is booted it will
only see the init script. And if systemd is booted it will first look at
the native service and ignore the init script if both exist. ALl that
matters is that the "foo" part for both filenames is the same.

We wanted to make the transition from sysv to systemd very easy, and I
think this is the simplemost scheme we could come up with. During a
transition period packages should just ship both files and it'll work
with both init systems.

I am not sure Upstart provides a similar scheme. I don't think so
however.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Chen Lei <supercyper1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it right for the maintainer to provide *two separate subpackages,
> one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
> scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
> sysinit subpackage?

No, that's crazy. The benefits of using the upstart syntax are small,
and would be completely outweighed by the downsides of bloating the
package set like this. It's also really undiscoverable; very few
system administrators are going to be actively seeking out -upstart
packages.

Long term we need to pick one init system and change things to take
advantage of it by default. Lennart's suggestion of shipping both in
the main package seems quite sane.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@0pointer.de> wrote:
> Handling this with systemd is very easy: you can just drop in a file in
> /etc/init.d/foo *AND* /etc/systemd/system/foo.service from the same
> package. And then, if something that is not systemd is booted it will
> only see the init script. And if systemd is booted it will first look at
> the native service and ignore the init script if both exist. ALl that
> matters is that the "foo" part for both filenames is the same.

Cool. When it comes time to put systemd in Fedora, please make sure
to note that in the Featuring documentation for packager guidance.

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

Once upon a time, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> said:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@0pointer.de> wrote:
> > Handling this with systemd is very easy: you can just drop in a file in
> > /etc/init.d/foo *AND* /etc/systemd/system/foo.service from the same
> > package. And then, if something that is not systemd is booted it will
> > only see the init script. And if systemd is booted it will first look at
> > the native service and ignore the init script if both exist. ALl that
> > matters is that the "foo" part for both filenames is the same.
>
> Cool. When it comes time to put systemd in Fedora, please make sure
> to note that in the Featuring documentation for packager guidance.

That would require systemd to be installed though, since otherwise
/etc/systemd doesn't exist (or every package that wants to drop a file
in there has to own it).

I guess the directory could be added to chkconfig or even filesystem.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

Chen Lei wrote:
> Is it right for the maintainer to provide two separate subpackages,
> one with the tranditional rc.d contents and one with an upstart
> scripts and make the -upstart subpackage have a higher priority over
> sysinit subpackage?

No. This is against our packaging guidelines. You'll notice that all the
offending packages are by the same maintainer (you easily recognize them
from the ridiculous Release versions).

All those -upstart and -lsb subpackages must go away and the -sysv
subpackages must be merged into the main package.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Even if systemd becomes the default, I doubt upstart is going to disappear
> from the repository.

Uh, IMHO it should get obsoleted by systemd and removed from the repository.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-upstart subpackage vs tranditional initscripts
 

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> That would require systemd to be installed though, since otherwise
> /etc/systemd doesn't exist (or every package that wants to drop a file
> in there has to own it).
>
> I guess the directory could be added to chkconfig or even filesystem.

That's an important note for the upcoming discussion over systemd
integration. Having filesystem own the directory seems like the
reasonable solution as part of systemd introduction...if it is decided
that systemd is meant to be removable. That's an open question.

Currently initscripts requires upstart explicitly for example. If the
decision is made to use systemd instead...I fully expect that systemd
will be a hard requirement for initscripts in a similar fashion to
what we have right now as part of the systemd integration feature.

And these upstart subpackages arent the only examples of upstart
native scripts. vpnc seems to have grown a native upstart script
already..with no sysinitv backup. We are already in the rabbithole.

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel