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


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-19-2012, 12:20 PM
Eliezer Croitoru
 
Default

i want to try this systemd thingy, where do is start at?
i have a vm for testing and i might will adopt it on the real one.

Thanks,
Eliezer

On 18/03/2012 09:28, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

it
or at least try it, and given the level of discussion you present, I'm
starting to think you don't actually have the capacity to study it.
So, in that sense, the one spreading the FUD is you.



--
Eliezer Croitoru
https://www1.ngtech.co.il
IT consulting for Nonprofit organizations
elilezer <at> ngtech.co.il
 
Old 03-19-2012, 12:30 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:45:06 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> * Really good in-site customization: The service unit files are
> trivially overrided with custom ones for specific installations,
> without needing to touch the ones installed by systemd or a program.
> With OpenRC, if I modify a /etc/init.d file, chances are I need to
> check out my next installation so I can see how the new file differs
> from the old one, and adapt the changes to my customized version.

This I like the sound of.


--
Neil Bothwick

Walking on water and writing software to specification is easy if they're
frozen.
 
Old 03-19-2012, 12:33 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:49:56 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> > They ensure that there is an sshd configuration file and
> > give a meaningful message (including where to find the sample) if it
> > is not present, and check for the presence of the hostkeys (again
> > which are needed) and create them if they are not present. Your 9
> > lines of sshd.service do none of this.
>
> That is completely true. I also think that those checks does not
> belong into the init script: I think the configuration file presence
> should be guarantee by the package manager at install time, and so the
> creation of the hostkeys.

sshd is a bit of a special case. Think like CDs, like SystemRescueCD. If
the keys were created at installation time, every CD would have the same
keys, which is not particularly desirable.


--
Neil Bothwick

I heard someone tried the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays
of W. Shakespeare but all they got was the collected works of Francis
Bacon
 
Old 03-19-2012, 12:49 PM
Alex Schuster
 
Default

Eliezer Croitoru writes:

> i want to try this systemd thingy, where do is start at?

http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd

Wonko
 
Old 03-19-2012, 12:57 PM
Michael Mol
 
Default

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:49:56 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> > They ensure that there is an sshd configuration file and
>> > give a meaningful message (including where to find the sample) if it
>> > is not present, and check for the presence of the hostkeys (again
>> > which are needed) and create them if they are not present. Your 9
>> > lines of sshd.service do none of this.
>>
>> That is completely true. I also think that those checks does not
>> belong into the init script: I think the configuration file presence
>> should be guarantee by the package manager at install time, and so the
>> creation of the hostkeys.
>
> sshd is a bit of a special case. Think like CDs, like SystemRescueCD. If
> the keys were created at installation time, every CD would have the same
> keys, which is not particularly desirable.

I prefer "counterexample" to "special case" ... I don't like calling
things "special cases" because it suggests that they're somehow more
privileged than anything else, and unnecessarily weighs against
software which hasn't been written yet.

A similar case which falls into the same kind of circumstance:
per-host IDs in mass-deployment scenarios. You see this in large
arrays of similar systems; 'sbc-a3d6' 'sbc-a3d9' 'sbc-7721' ... Heck,
applying something like that to live installation media would be nice;
not having every new install called simply 'gentoo' by default would
be very helpful in installfest scenarios. Identical hostnames screw
with DHCP-driven DDNS updates. I ran into that on my home network.

--
:wq
 
Old 03-19-2012, 01:33 PM
"Bruce Hill, Jr."
 
Default

On March 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:48:54 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:
>
> > And for the Lennart fanboi, his coding is
> > so questionable that "Lennartware" has become derogatory slang. (Of
> > course, you already know that.)
>
> And this is such a common term nowadays that when Googling for
> Lennartware only one reference to it turn up on the first page, and that
> is your post!
>
> I suppose by quoting your post I have doubled the popularity of this
> commonplace slang :-O
>
> This whole systemd for and against thread has turned up some interesting
> points - interspersed with vague handwaving from you.
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick


mingdao@workstation ~ $ grep Lennartware irclogs/*
irclogs/#gentoo-dev.log:09:01 <@bonsaikitten> Caster: do you see now why I
don't appreciate Lennartware?
irclogs/#gentoo.log:10:56 <@bonsaikitten> Zaba: Lennartware. Linux needs to
be more like MacOS

https://s6-us2.startpage.com/do/search?cmd=process_search&pid=04014d679c59b80b6064 05a6fe33495a
<--- 4 references

Various other mentions of systemd being nefarious software are mostly
amongst kernel devs and might not use the word "Lennartware", but the
logical reasons why systemd is a _bad_ idea are the same.
--
Happy Penguin Computers >`)
126 Fenco Drive (
Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com
 
Old 03-19-2012, 09:58 PM
"Walter Dnes"
 
Default

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:35:26AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

> > systemd is like Captain Picard of STTNG (Start Trek The Next
> > Generation) always saying "make it so". *HOW DO YOU "MAKE IT SO"?
> > That intelligence has to be somewhere. So what alternative do you
> > propose? A bash or ash script is more guaranteed to run than a
> > binary. Shoving all that "intelligence" into the service itself,
> > means that the service has to start up in order to determine whether
> > it's safe for the service to start up. What's wrong with this
> > picture?
>
> The intelligence goes in the init system's config file for that service
> of course. I know I didn't clearly say so, but that's where it goes.

The config file can specify upper/lower limits, variables, settings,
etc, etc. But in the end, some executable somewhere is going to have to
parse the config file, check the actual environment, and decide whether
or not to launch the service, and with what parameters.

Note also that many open source programs are multiplatform. I.e. they
run on FreeDOS with DJGPP, multiple flavours of Windows, multiple BSDs
(including Apple), linux, and multiple commercial unix flavours. Do you
really want to throw multiple platform-specific IFDEFs into the program
code to allow the services to do the appropriate platform-specific
initialization? Isn't it be easier to move the service setup out of the
main service, and let the maintainers of the specific platforms figure
it out?

One last question. Let's go back in time 20 years, and assume that
you're the maintainer for a program that runs as a service. A small
handfull of end-users come along. They're running a "hobby OS" that
fits on a couple floppies. Said "hobby OS" has been cobbled together by
a university student. Would you...
* download that university student's hobby OS, and install it
* throw in a bunch of additional IFDEF initialization code in your program
* test and debug the program to make sure it runs under that OS

--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
 
Old 03-19-2012, 10:11 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:33:11 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote:

> > > And for the Lennart fanboi, his coding is
> > > so questionable that "Lennartware" has become derogatory slang. (Of
> > > course, you already know that.)
> >
> > And this is such a common term nowadays that when Googling for
> > Lennartware only one reference to it turn up on the first page, and
> > that is your post!

> mingdao@workstation ~ $ grep Lennartware irclogs/*
> irclogs/#gentoo-dev.log:09:01 <@bonsaikitten> Caster: do you see now
> why I don't appreciate Lennartware?
> irclogs/#gentoo.log:10:56 <@bonsaikitten> Zaba: Lennartware. Linux
> needs to be more like MacOS

Wow, 2 mentions on IRC - the term really has invaded the English
language.

> <--- 4 references

Still not enough for Google to see it, barely enough for a contrived
allegation.

> Various other mentions of systemd being nefarious software are mostly
> amongst kernel devs and might not use the word "Lennartware", but the
> logical reasons why systemd is a _bad_ idea are the same.

Where does systemd come into it? Gentoo is following udev's upstream
requirements. These may have been triggered by udev's support for systemd
but that in no way means that systemd is required.

Greg K-H is also in favour of making /usr available to early boot, are
you going to accuse him of shoddy coding too?


--
Neil Bothwick

"Of course, I could switch back to Windows. At least there, if I have a
problem, I don't suffer under the illusion that I could ever fix it." -
Unknown (paraphrased)
 
Old 03-19-2012, 10:18 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:58:22 -0400
"Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:35:26AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
>
> > > systemd is like Captain Picard of STTNG (Start Trek The Next
> > > Generation) always saying "make it so". *HOW DO YOU "MAKE IT SO"?
> > > That intelligence has to be somewhere. So what alternative do you
> > > propose? A bash or ash script is more guaranteed to run than a
> > > binary. Shoving all that "intelligence" into the service itself,
> > > means that the service has to start up in order to determine
> > > whether it's safe for the service to start up. What's wrong with
> > > this picture?
> >
> > The intelligence goes in the init system's config file for that
> > service of course. I know I didn't clearly say so, but that's where
> > it goes.
>
> The config file can specify upper/lower limits, variables, settings,
> etc, etc. But in the end, some executable somewhere is going to have
> to parse the config file, check the actual environment, and decide
> whether or not to launch the service, and with what parameters.
>
> Note also that many open source programs are multiplatform. I.e.
> they run on FreeDOS with DJGPP, multiple flavours of Windows,
> multiple BSDs (including Apple), linux, and multiple commercial unix
> flavours. Do you really want to throw multiple platform-specific
> IFDEFs into the program code to allow the services to do the
> appropriate platform-specific initialization? Isn't it be easier to
> move the service setup out of the main service, and let the
> maintainers of the specific platforms figure it out?
>
> One last question. Let's go back in time 20 years, and assume that
> you're the maintainer for a program that runs as a service. A small
> handfull of end-users come along. They're running a "hobby OS" that
> fits on a couple floppies. Said "hobby OS" has been cobbled together
> by a university student. Would you...
> * download that university student's hobby OS, and install it
> * throw in a bunch of additional IFDEF initialization code in your
> program
> * test and debug the program to make sure it runs under that OS
>

I'm not sure where you're going with this. We're discussing an init
system and good, simple ways to start services. App maintainers are
going to continue to do whatever they feel they ought to do, some might
write the systemd files, some might not - that is what already
happens. Someone has to write it and what goes in it depends on what
the app code does, not the other way round.

I'm not punting the merits of systemd, I don;t know enough about it. I
started off by saying a nice clean easy way to do init would be
awesome, as I'm sick and tired of having to deal with sysvinit. That's
all, don't read more into it than that.

As for the last question, I really have no idea where you're taking
this. I don't know the answer, I've never been a maintainer in that
position. Being the arrogant shit that I am, I reckon I would probably
tell the user to piss off and I don't support hobby crap. But hey,
that's just what I think I might say while sitting here on my couch.
Any other answer would be equally made up.

--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
 
Old 03-20-2012, 07:07 AM
Arch Website Notification
 
Default

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/

There are currently:
* 2 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 4 packages missing signoffs
* 0 packages older than 14 days

(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)


== New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (2 total) ==

* virtualbox-modules-4.1.10-2 (i686)
* virtualbox-modules-4.1.10-2 (x86_64)


== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (4 total) ==

* cdemu-daemon-1.5.0-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* virtualbox-modules-4.1.10-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* cdemu-daemon-1.5.0-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* virtualbox-modules-4.1.10-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs


== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1. bisson - 10 signoffs
2. eric - 4 signoffs
3. foutrelis - 4 signoffs
4. thomas - 2 signoffs
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39 PM.

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