Excerpts from Svante Signell's message of 2014-02-10 21:49:56 -0800: > On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 20:53 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > So, perhaps if we teach Upstart and OpenRC to read systemd unit files, > > and they all can be expected to behave similarly, this will work out. > > Otherwise, giving everyone a choice just makes work for little gain. > > Why should OpenRC and Upstart adapt to a format that is not standardized > in _any_ way? The format specification should be written by Debian > people (including downstream), and be a common denominator for all init > systems wanting to be compatible. The proposal could be based on the LSB > headers, and a good extension to that has recently been proposed by the > sysvinit maintainer: Two line init.d scripts > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00106.html
Meh. Pick one. > > Additionally a very good proposal for a PID 1 program was in > http://ewontfix.com/14/ "Broken by design: systemd", copied here for > convenience: > > #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 700 > #include <signal.h> > #include <unistd.h> > > int main() > { > sigset_t set; > int status; > > if (getpid() != 1) return 1; > > sigfillset(&set); > sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &set, 0); > > if (fork()) for (;;) wait(&status); > > sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &set, 0); > > setsid(); > setpgid(0, 0); > return execve("/etc/rc", (char *[]){ "rc", 0 }, (char *[]){ 0 }); > } > Indeed, I have no problem with this approach and I'm not crazy about systemd's scope. But if the default ends up as systemd, it gets a bonus as the one to follow in the Linux world so IMO it is an easier choice to just use their syntax. -- 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/1392105255-sup-5...@fewbar.com
