On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> wrote: > | Also, if systemd would use init scripts just fine, then one could > | argue to just use SysV init scripts for everything, since then there > | is no extra effort involved and people can easily swap init systems. > > You can, sure, but if we accept the premise that systemd units are > easier to write than init scripts it means we get fewer bugs that way. > Also, if you want to use some of the more advanced features like socket > activation you need to write unit files.
If a daemon supports socket activation then there would need to be separate work done to write a systemd unit and a sysvinit script. If a daemon doesn't support socket activation then IMHO the ideal situation would be to have a program that takes a systemd unit file as input and creates a sysvinit script. That would reduce the amount of effort and reduce the amount of low quality sysvinit scripts that are out there (and I've written my share of such bad scripts). -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201107222357.49849.russ...@coker.com.au
