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 > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-09-2012, 06:31 PM
William Hubbs
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation
> > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio
> > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it.
>
> This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a very
> reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you code is
> terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you.

Sorry to call you on this one, but that is not the experience I had.

I proposed adding configure switches to their build system to accomodate
source base distros, such as gentoo, who at times want to use udev
without systemd. I even went out of the way to make sure that I didn't
change their default settings.

Look at a thread on their ml called minimal builds along with their wiki
page on minimal builds for Lennart's answer. He even went so far as to
say that our package managers are broken, and there was absolutely no
negotiating this point. We are wrong as far as he is concerned.

William

[1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/MinimalBuilds
 
Old 08-09-2012, 06:41 PM
Olivier Crête
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 13:31 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation
> > > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio
> > > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it.
> >
> > This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a very
> > reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you code is
> > terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you.
>
> Sorry to call you on this one, but that is not the experience I had.
>
> I proposed adding configure switches to their build system to accomodate
> source base distros, such as gentoo, who at times want to use udev
> without systemd. I even went out of the way to make sure that I didn't
> change their default settings.
>
> Look at a thread on their ml called minimal builds along with their wiki
> page on minimal builds for Lennart's answer. He even went so far as to
> say that our package managers are broken, and there was absolutely no
> negotiating this point. We are wrong as far as he is concerned.

He has a perfectly reasonable argument that build time is really not
something you should be optimising for. Build systems easily become
overcomplicated if you try to make everyone happy, you do have to make
choices. Anyway, I'm not sure how that's related to the quality or
design of systemd.

--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer
 
Old 08-09-2012, 06:44 PM
Canek Peláez Valdés
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
[snip]
> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than
> libc is stupid and dangerous.

No, it's not. You can (and should) depend on whatever libraries helps
to achieve the desired goals. If one of the libraries has a bug, guess
what? It should be fixed. And then you repeat until all the used
libraries are as stable as libc (or more, if possible), and then the
statement that "having your first process require anything more than
libc is stupid and dangerous" makes no sense at all.

(As a side note, I would like to see the bugrate of libpthread,
libudev, libpam, libaudit, libcap, libdbus, etc. I'm pretty sure the
latest versions are pretty much rock solid).

That's in part what I like the approach taken by systemd (and
PulseAudio, by the way); it wants to be a proper solution, and if in
using something else they detect a bug, they push to get the bug fixed
in the external library (or the kernel sometimes). They don't
"workaround" real problems. It's the only way to guarantee that the
*whole* stack (not only libc, or the kernel) actually works as it
should.

So yes, PID 1 should use whatever libraries it makes sense to use, and
if there are bugs in them *they should get fixed*. Otherwise lets
program everything in assembler, because maybe gcc has a bug
somewhere.

> Once that concept gets accepted then we could discuss about why
> reinventing shellscript may not be that sound and other less glaring,
> horrid and appalling design choices.

The didn't reinvent shellscript; they replaced it with unit files.
That's the best design choice about systemd, IMHO: the unit files say
*what* a service should do, not *how*. And besides, you can still use
shellscript if your daemon is so fucked up that a regular unit file
doesn't cover your case. You should fix your daemon, really; but the
option to use shellscript is still there.

> Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation
> is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio
> we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it.

Really? I'm subscribed to the systemd ML, and the author accept all
kind of contributions. If they don't agree with one in particular they
explain why and the discuss a compromise if necessary. Doing the
following in my git clone of the project:

git log --format='%aN' | sort -u | wc

shows a total of 337 contributors to systemd. So I really believe that
you are talking nonsense in this particular point.

> Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork
> it", then "do not keep your fork you are wasting time" once somebody
> starts forking and/or working for an alternative.

By all means, fork it. Just allow Gentoo users to use udev/systemd as
upstream intended. And while we are at it, don't put OpenRC in the
dependency list of baselayout, otherwise it gets pulled in (and
sysvinit with it) for all systemd users even if we don't use it at
all. I maintain a really small overlay to use systemd exclusively in
Gentoo, so I don't need to install OpenRC and sysvinit:

https://github.com/canek-pelaez/gentoo-systemd-only/
http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/gentoo-systemd-only/

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
 
Old 08-09-2012, 06:48 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:12:46 -0700
Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a
> very reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you
> code is terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you.

No no. If you agree with him, he's a reasonable guy. If you suggest
that there's a possible alternative to a decision he's already made, or
that some of his justifications don't stand up to scrutiny, then he
ignores you.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 08-09-2012, 06:53 PM
Canek Peláez Valdés
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation
>> > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio
>> > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it.
>>
>> This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a very
>> reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you code is
>> terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you.
>
> Sorry to call you on this one, but that is not the experience I had.
>
> I proposed adding configure switches to their build system to accomodate
> source base distros, such as gentoo, who at times want to use udev
> without systemd. I even went out of the way to make sure that I didn't
> change their default settings.
>
> Look at a thread on their ml called minimal builds along with their wiki
> page on minimal builds for Lennart's answer. He even went so far as to
> say that our package managers are broken, and there was absolutely no
> negotiating this point. We are wrong as far as he is concerned.

By the same reasoning, Linus is even a bigger asshole. In the kernel
they flatly refuse to merge code from a LOT of people; that's their
job in the end.

I read the thread where you proposed the changes to systemd's build
system. I wish it was accepted, but I also understand why they didn't.
As I said in other threads, they really don't care for source based
distros; and that sucks for Gentoo (and every other source based
distro), but it's their call. And it certainly helps them to keep the
build system simple, assuming that it would be used only by packagers
for binary distros.

That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I
use it; not because of the build system.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
 
Old 08-09-2012, 06:57 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:53:34 -0500
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I
> use it; not because of the build system.

Actually, it's fairly representative of the design of systemd too: it
forces you into a particular monolithic, vertically integrated, tightly
coupled way of doing things, and if you try to deviate from that way,
then you're stuffed.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 08-09-2012, 07:02 PM
Tomáš Pružina
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

Not really, Linus has his own web of trust and he don't take stuff
from unknown sources, he has his liutennants and every single patch
and change must be reviewed by at least two other maintainers below
Linus.
After all, Linux does not belong to Linus and his branch is by
definition of distributed system no better than yours.
Exception being is that he generally makes right decisions and can be
reason with.
It would be much simpler to push _good_ feature into kernel than into
gentoo [imho].

@systemd:
I liked it in it's early stages but every month code gets more and
more bloated and for (to me) unknown reason it's slowing on my machine
every new version. It also did not deliver on promise of stability as
early scripts I wrote don't work with latest version.


On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote:
>>> > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation
>>> > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio
>>> > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it.
>>>
>>> This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a very
>>> reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you code is
>>> terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you.
>>
>> Sorry to call you on this one, but that is not the experience I had.
>>
>> I proposed adding configure switches to their build system to accomodate
>> source base distros, such as gentoo, who at times want to use udev
>> without systemd. I even went out of the way to make sure that I didn't
>> change their default settings.
>>
>> Look at a thread on their ml called minimal builds along with their wiki
>> page on minimal builds for Lennart's answer. He even went so far as to
>> say that our package managers are broken, and there was absolutely no
>> negotiating this point. We are wrong as far as he is concerned.
>
> By the same reasoning, Linus is even a bigger asshole. In the kernel
> they flatly refuse to merge code from a LOT of people; that's their
> job in the end.
>
> I read the thread where you proposed the changes to systemd's build
> system. I wish it was accepted, but I also understand why they didn't.
> As I said in other threads, they really don't care for source based
> distros; and that sucks for Gentoo (and every other source based
> distro), but it's their call. And it certainly helps them to keep the
> build system simple, assuming that it would be used only by packagers
> for binary distros.
>
> That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I
> use it; not because of the build system.
>
> Regards.
> --
> Canek Peláez Valdés
> Posgrado en Ciencia e IngenierÃ*a de la Computación
> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
>
 
Old 08-09-2012, 07:24 PM
Canek Peláez Valdés
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:53:34 -0500
> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I
>> use it; not because of the build system.
>
> Actually, it's fairly representative of the design of systemd too: it
> forces you into a particular monolithic, vertically integrated, tightly
> coupled way of doing things, and if you try to deviate from that way,
> then you're stuffed.

I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
"vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things". And of
course people who *don't* want that don't have to use it; just don't
expect support from the people writing the code for a "vertically
integrated, tightly coupled" OS, and don't complain when they reject
your contributions when they go against their goals.

Or in other words, if you don't want a vertically integrated, tightly
coupled system, then use mdev, or Luca's fork of udev; if enough
people really want that, they will thrive.

Regards.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
 
Old 08-09-2012, 07:43 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than
> libc is stupid and dangerous.

But you are aware that glibc is probably much, much worse than most of
those 'stupid and dangerous' libraries, right?

> Once that concept gets accepted then we could discuss about why
> reinventing shellscript may not be that sound and other less glaring,
> horrid and appalling design choices.

Yes, exactly. So why does openrc reinvent that horrible shellscript?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 08-09-2012, 07:47 PM
Rich Freeman
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
> "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things".

Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo
(or Debian, or other general-purpose distros). He advocates that
ordinary users should use more purpose-driven distros, where all of
this stuff is less of an issue.

He does make a valid point - I'd never argue that a linux noob should
start with Gentoo. However, obviously I think Gentoo has its place,
and the world would be poorer without it.

Rich
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:32 PM.

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