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 > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-19-2011, 11:11 AM
JB
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

Hi,

My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.

You would install them as suitable for your individual system needs.
The SysV/LSB system init would be default as is now.

The reason for it is twofold:
- SysV/LSB init system
- it is established, with a long history of familiarity within UNIX/Linux
OS environments, whether by a professional or amateur sysadmin, a system
programmer or architect, a technical or casual user
- adherence to UNIX principles
- ease of use due to shell scripting
- transparency of code due to shell use
- ease of system setup
- ease of prototyping, editing, experimenting, etc
- based on the above, it has a distincit advantage over systemd
- systemd
- as of today, it does not offer any functional advantage over SysV/LSB,
except a new make-up with heavy use of lipstic in form of unit
configuration files (and control functions)
- there is no promised land of "parallelization" and speed, which can not
be achieved without applying concurrency and all system programming
models and tools available today (client-server/master-slave, sockets,
multithreading, synchronization constructs, synchronous/asynchronous
programming, or even hybrid event- and threads-driven programming where
appropriate, etc)
- the project, to achieve full benefits of concurrency, should become fully
autonomous and self-contained
- it should abandon any utilization of or allowing shell processing
(internally or externally)
- it should use coding in C exclusively, with a separate execution
environment, data structures, config files, services definition and
execution, controls, secure programming, etc.
- advantages:
- a separate development env
- speed
- clearer paths to utilization
- availability and possible customization for and in devices or systems
that would have unique requirements, where traditional (script based)
init systems would be impossible or inappropriate
- ability to tailor it for cooperation with other environments (GNOME, etc)

JB

ZZTop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-y33Uq6HGs



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-19-2011, 12:58 PM
Dmitry Butskoy
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

JB wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.
>
+1, but it seems impossible now.

If you prefer to continue with SysV, it is your right to create a fork,
or just an additional repository (starting from F14 code base) with
traditional SysV init system and hundreds of (now removed) traditional
init scripts for hundreds of daemons.

BTW, such a task looks quite realistic (even for two, three persons).
Just trace the main Fedora packages and make needed changes for your
SysV init system and your collection of SysV initrd scripts. I'm sure
you will find adherens in this idea.

The continuation of this discussion here is not productive, anyway.


Dmitry Butskoy
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DmitryButskoy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-19-2011, 01:24 PM
drago01
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM, JB <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.

That's just adds a maintenance burden for no real benefit.

> You would install them as suitable for your individual system needs.
> The SysV/LSB system init would be default as is now.

We should support sysVinit scripts when they are present but we should
not ship them where we have proper unit files
and sure not use them by default. (legacy technology is for backward
compact not more and not less).
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-19-2011, 01:34 PM
"Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson"
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

On 07/19/2011 11:11 AM, JB wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.
>
> You would install them as suitable for your individual system needs.
> The SysV/LSB system init would be default as is now.

First of all systemd is the default init systemd and has been from F15

Secondly I'm pretty sure the legacy sysv init system maintainer is happy
to give you the ownership of the component then you can maintain it for
as long as you want...

You probably want to add your self as as co-maintainer to several
components and start reverting code bases and packaging several
components separately you know for the once that have gone the full
systemd route and for the once that have decided to drop the legacy sysv
init support and the legacy sysv init script with it...

You probably need a separate crew to do QA on the legacy sysv init
systemd since I'm pretty sure that QA wants to only be overseeing and
dedicating resource to support one init system and doing that well and
that init systemd being the default one what ever that might be at any
given time.

For the rest of the items you listed in your post it's better that you
list facts/test cases and what not basically everything else but a list
of buzzwords and encase you are going to respond with the "sysadmin
argument" then let me respond to that forehand in reality any competent
sysadmin will adapt to the new init system as he does for various other
code changes in the application stack that runs on the hardware he's
administrating if he doesn't then I suggest you fire him and hire
another one that can.

Now if you just happen to be a sysadmin then I suggest you either get
with the program or expect to be out of job tomorrow since there is
plethora of competent sysadmins out there that are able and willing and
after your job...

If for what ever reason it just happens to be that you find any joy in
maintaining init system(s) then might I suggest the Debian project since
they might end up carrying three.

Thanks

JBG

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-19-2011, 01:37 PM
seth vidal
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 13:34 +0000, "Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson" wrote:

> Now if you just happen to be a sysadmin then I suggest you either get
> with the program or expect to be out of job tomorrow since there is
> plethora of competent sysadmins out there that are able and willing and
> after your job...


That remark is neither necessary nor in keeping with fedora's community
standards. Please stop.

-sv


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-19-2011, 01:57 PM
Adam Jackson
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 11:11 +0000, JB wrote:

> My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.

We'll take that under advisement.

- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-19-2011, 02:01 PM
seth vidal
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 09:57 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 11:11 +0000, JB wrote:
>
> > My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> > as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.
>
> We'll take that under advisement.

Ajax,
That remark is also unnecessary and just comes across as snarky. The
only thing this will achieve is to keep other people from being willing
to comment on issues in the future.

Please stop this.
-sv


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-19-2011, 02:36 PM
JB
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

Adam Jackson <ajax <at> redhat.com> writes:

>
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 11:11 +0000, JB wrote:
>
> > My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> > as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.
>
> We'll take that under advisement.
>
> - ajax
>
>

I am actually not discouraged.

The current state of systemd is "neither here nor there", and will never be
"there" as designed now, from the conceptual and technical point of view.
They have learned some stuff during these discussions here that clarified
the project's goals as they were and should be.

I think they know it - they are good system programmers.

There is nothing wrong with taking a breather, reflecting, and making a second
approach. In particular, if their testing platform is Fedora and they can
easily turn around now, without any problems.
In my eyes that would be a sign of maturity on their part.

We would give the systemd people a chance to do it right, big way !
They would have a great opportunity to show their talent in full by utilizing
all that UNIX/Linux offers in system programming models and tools.

JB




--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-19-2011, 02:37 PM
Steve Dickson
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

On 07/19/2011 09:37 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 13:34 +0000, "Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson" wrote:
>
>> Now if you just happen to be a sysadmin then I suggest you either get
>> with the program or expect to be out of job tomorrow since there is
>> plethora of competent sysadmins out there that are able and willing and
>> after your job...
>
>
> That remark is neither necessary nor in keeping with fedora's community
> standards. Please stop.
+1

steved.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-19-2011, 04:16 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

seth vidal (skvidal@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > > My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> > > as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.
> >
> > We'll take that under advisement.
>
> Ajax,
> That remark is also unnecessary and just comes across as snarky. The
> only thing this will achieve is to keep other people from being willing
> to comment on issues in the future.

So, the preference is to say nothing at all?

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org