Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-26 Thread Bill Nottingham
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said: > Example: /lib/systemd/system/syslog.target has this line: > > # See systemd.special(7) for details > > I am not sure I want to duplicate all documentation in the man pages and > in the spec fails a second time. If you think a referal like that

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-26 Thread Bill Nottingham
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said: > > * if we continue to require sysVinit scripts in the guidlines, this is true. > > * If we don't, then sysadmins that have to install packages without sysvinit > > scripts will have to deal with writing their own init scripts. > > My take on thi

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-26 Thread Bill Nottingham
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said: > Nobody has said anything that upstart was being deprecated nobody! Actually, I'll say that, sort of. Fedora 14 should only ship with one automatic init system. Given the current feature, that would be systemd. If it fails, that would be upstar

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Simo Sorce
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:33:23 -0400 Cole Robinson wrote: > Granted, the user's conclusion in the first situation is bogus, but if > someones first interaction with the new system is confusion and > unnecessary readjustment of long held interface expectations, it's > going to cause a lot of frictio

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:33, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 07/21/2010 10:42 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Wed, 21.07.10 22:13, Chuck Anderson (c...@wpi.edu) wrote: >> >>> >>> Well, there is some merit in the already stated argument for having >>> good UI design.  In this example, you could hav

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Cole Robinson
On 07/21/2010 10:42 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 21.07.10 22:13, Chuck Anderson (c...@wpi.edu) wrote: > >> >> Well, there is some merit in the already stated argument for having >> good UI design. In this example, you could have used long-standing >> precedent of using -v -vv -vvv (o

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Cole Robinson
On 07/22/2010 07:16 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 23.07.10 00:55, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> >> On 07/23/2010 12:10 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >>> Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install >>> into systemctl entirely, and replace --reali

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Matthew Miller
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > For simplicity's sake we thought it would be smart to ensure that the > unit names are actually identical to the unit configuration files they > are configured in on disk. i.e. you'll find the configuration for a unit > "foobar.s

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Alexander Boström
tor 2010-07-22 klockan 15:12 -0400 skrev Simo Sorce: > The nss_sss and pam_sss clients know to immediately give up if the > sockets are not there because that means that sssd is not up yet. > If I were to use socket activation instead that service would bring > sssd up unnecessarily early, before

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Alexander Boström
tor 2010-07-22 klockan 18:48 +0200 skrev Miloslav Trmač: > I don't know whether this currently happens with Fedora, but it is not > at all irrelevant and systemd could indeed make the situation much > worse. A typical problem in the past has been that starting dbus includes looking at users and g

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Let's go off into a tangent: > > Just booted my x86_64 rawhide box (up to date) into systemd. SELinux is > enforcing. Boot worked, but the machine got stuck on shudown. Had to power off. Thanks $DEITY for journalling filesystems... I saw comments on selinux-policy-ta

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 21:30, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote: > > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > On Thu, 22.07.10 15:19, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > [...] > > Sorry, but what if the configuration got screwed up, and > > just won't star

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:42:03PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 23.07.10 07:15, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > Yes, unless you aks the init system to reload. > > > > > So we don't want to do systemd-install enable in most spec files. > > Dunno. > > There are

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Daniel J Walsh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2010 11:31 PM, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Let's go off into a tangent: > > Just booted my x86_64 rawhide box (up to date) into systemd. SELinux is > enforcing. > > Boot works, but not graphical boot. > > The output from the rc scripts is m

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Let's go off into a tangent: Just booted my x86_64 rawhide box (up to date) into systemd. SELinux is enforcing. Boot works, but not graphical boot. The output from the rc scripts is messed up ([OK] in gray, not green; not at the end of the line but at the start of the next). Several fail. X doe

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:25:23AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 17:51, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote: > > > > Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install > > > into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Fri, 23.07.10 07:15, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Yes, unless you aks the init system to reload. > > > So we don't want to do systemd-install enable in most spec files. Dunno. There are three levels of installation thinkable: 1) on package installation a .service file is

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 23:25, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > I think this scheme is really simply now, as the operations issued are > > first class commands, and no switches necessary. Also, the verbs here > > are 1:1 from the LSB specs, and hence should offer no surprises to > > anybody. > >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 19:41, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then > > > # For new installations, hook unit file into the appropriate > > > places via symlinks > > > /usr/bin/syst

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-23 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 19:41, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then > > > # For new installations, hook unit file into the appropriate > > > places via symlinks > > > /usr/bin/syst

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 18:43, Lennart Poettering wrote: > >    systemctl enable foobar.service >    systemctl reload foobar.service          ### reload if running > > or just: > >    systemctl enable foobar.service > > or, for debian folks which want to start services after package installation:

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chuck Anderson
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 02:43:45AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 20:40, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote: > systemctl stop postfix.service > systemctl disable postfix.service > systemctl enable foobar.service > systemctl try-restart foobar.servic

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:43:45 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 20:40, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > > > to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.). > > > > > >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:12:53 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > To get rid of dep cycles we have to declare which daemon may use which > other daemon. For example, for the case of mysql and syslog, we can > say that mysql is client and syslog is server and then be done with > it. If we look on sss

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:12:53 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > Also, if you look at sssd and a simple hypothetical syslog daemon > which looks up the user id of everybody connecting to it. If sssd is > used this will deadlock: sssd logs to syslog, and syslog uses NSS to > resovle your user id and

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:12:53 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > Well, in your sssd example above the cyclic dependency exists with or > without systemd. You try to work around this fact in saying "well, > I simply say that nobody could ever need my services before a certain > point P in time after

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 22:21, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 02:31:49AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Note that "systemctl enable foo.service" will (with my suggested changes > > in place) result in foo.service to be started. For Fedora we generally > > Is

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 02:31:49AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Note that "systemctl enable foo.service" will (with my suggested changes > in place) result in foo.service to be started. For Fedora we generally Is that "will not result"? Otherwise I'm having trouble parsing this paragraph.

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 21:30, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote: > > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Thu, 22.07.10 15:19, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > [...] > > > > Bad example, it may make sense if you have a single host, but if you > > > have multiple HTTP servers, you

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 15:12, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > If a service A uses functionality provided by a service B which in > > turn uses functionality provided by A then things willbreak regardless > > whether systemd is used or not. > > This is not true. > SSSD is an example of that. >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > Trust me, the output of the two commands is sufficiently different to > not confuse anybody. It isn't the output that is confusing, it is the names. "show" and "status" are just too close, and people are not going to remember which is which. -- Chris

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Toshio Kuratomi wrote: [...] > This may not be true. No packaging guidelines have been put forth > for systemd yet so I cannot know: > > * if we continue to require sysVinit scripts in the guidlines, this is true. > * If we don't, then sysadmins that have to install packages without sysvinit >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Jeff Spaleta wrote: > 2010/7/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" : > > I think it's time to re-inform everyone since they seemed to be so > > focused on systemd and have completely forgot about upstart. > > > > Nobody has said anything that upstart was being deprecated nobody! > > That's not exactly wha

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 16:36, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote: > > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Well, I think good UI means that you distuingish computer parsable and > > > human readable tools. "status" is human readable. "show"/"chec

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 15:19, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: [...] > > Bad example, it may make sense if you have a single host, but if you > > have multiple HTTP servers, you want the one that died to stop answering > > until it is back up and running and ready to s

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 19:06 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > > Same with systemd. If you use "systemctl status foo.service" the output > > is human readable. If it is "systemctl show foo.service" it is computer > > parsable. Just a slightly different command

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 14.07.10 21:38, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote: [...] > > I think some of this is just the tools being inconsistent in terminology. > > > > Take systemctl: > > > > - It has a LOAD column (which is always 'loaded', in observation) > > Well, that

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 19:08, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Now that everybody has been (re)informed we can go back on focusing > > working out these issues together without any negativity on any ones behalf. > > > This may not be true. No packaging guidelines have been put forth >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 18:16, Stephen John Smoogen (smo...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 18:06, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > >> Same with systemd. If you use "systemctl status foo.service" the output > >> is human readable. If it is "systemctl sh

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jesse Keating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2010 05:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > So, "show" is very verbose. On the other hand "status" is pretty > short. It only shows runtime information and that in a hightly reduced > way. For example fields are suppressed depending on the stat

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 19:06, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote: > > Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > > Same with systemd. If you use "systemctl status foo.service" the output > > is human readable. If it is "systemctl show foo.service" it is computer > > parsable. Just a slightly dif

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 20:40, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote: > > On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.). > > > > > > but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with an > > > abstr

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 19:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > My impression from the documentation is that systemd-install enable will > > > cause the service to be enabled on the next reboot. Is that not > > > cor

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 18:06, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: >> Same with systemd. If you use "systemctl status foo.service" the output >> is human readable. If it is "systemctl show foo.service" it is computer >> parsable. Just a slightly different command of th

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > Same with systemd. If you use "systemctl status foo.service" the output > is human readable. If it is "systemctl show foo.service" it is computer > parsable. Just a slightly different command of the systemctl tool. Again: this is confusing! There shou

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > My impression from the documentation is that systemd-install enable will > > cause the service to be enabled on the next reboot. Is that not > > correct? > Yes, unless you aks the init system to reload. Wait, am I correct in

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 19:41, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then > > # For new installations, hook unit file into the appropriate places > > via symlinks > > /usr/bin/systemd-install enable --realize=reload %{unit > > name}.service > /dev/null 2>&1 |

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 16:36, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote: > > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > [...] > > > Well, I think good UI means that you distuingish computer parsable and > > human readable tools. "status" is human readable. "show"/"check" are > > computer-parsable. > > Mi

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 13:39, Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand > wrote: > > Great to know about that. And yes, it  is extremely relevant for a sysadmin > > to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs and stuff. > > >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:30:42AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 21.07.10 20:08, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > - If you want to enable and possibly start a service from the %post of > > > an RPM then use the "systemd-install enable" command, which will > > >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 15:19, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > But also HTTP is a good candidate. When apache shuts down it closes > > the listening socket but will finish processing the requests it > > already began to process. Would apache use socket actviation like > > this it would hence be

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Fri, 23.07.10 01:17, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On 07/23/2010 01:14 AM, Alexander Boström wrote: > > But the thing to remember: If systemd-install is too complicated to use, > > people will keep using chkconfig and service instead and ignore the > > warning. That's why it's

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 17:51, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote: > > Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install > > into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll > > drop some of the options --realize had, and always imply that the init > >

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:44:31PM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote: > > But for basics such as "chkconfig service on|off|--list", there should > > be compatibility. > > Yes. I basically use: > > chkconfig foo on > chkconfig foo off > env LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 chkconfig --list | fgrep :on |awk '{print $

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:43:47PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I think --now is fine. There's even precedent: the famous 'shutdown -h > now'. Bonus points if it also allows midnight, noon, and teatime a la `at`. :) -- Matthew Miller Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Com

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Fri, 23.07.10 00:55, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On 07/23/2010 12:10 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install > > into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll > > drop some of the options -

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:21:59PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/22/2010 06:37 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > Personally, speaking as a person_and_ a sysadmin, it would be > > worthwhile to have a big freakin button somewhere that allowed me to > > disable all native systemd config

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:39:06PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand > wrote: > > Great to know about that. And yes, it  is extremely relevant for a sysadmin > > to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs and stuff. > > > Hmm

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jon Masters
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 09:22 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Leadership means making careful, well-conceived decisions. Otherwise, it's > not leading, it's charging around blindly shouting "follow me!". I'll leave the rest of the thread to Matthew and Mike McGrath, since they seem to share my posit

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 03:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 07/23/2010 03:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:37 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > >> What do other commands use for "do it now" (instead of "later")? Perhaps > >> the ubiquitous "-f/--force" will do? > >>

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I have seen this done with a couple of GNU tools in the past. The > problems that usually stopped this was that too many strange consoles > seem to be a pipe at somepoint and so it spits out the wrong format at > the wrong time. It is

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.). > > > > > > but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with an > > > abstract computer object. > > > > Dave, I am not a nat

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 07/23/2010 03:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:37 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote: >> What do other commands use for "do it now" (instead of "later")? Perhaps >> the ubiquitous "-f/--force" will do? >> > I think --now is fine. There's even precedent: the famous 'shut

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 15:39, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand > wrote: >> Great to know about that. And yes, it  is extremely relevant for a sysadmin >> to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs and stuff. > > > Hmm... can these

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:37 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > > however is very confusing when you'd write "disable --start" to disable > > something and then have it stop...) We then considered "--now", because > > it is not a verb. > > What is wrong with that? "enable --now" and "disable --now

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Great to know about that. And yes, it  is extremely relevant for a sysadmin > to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs and stuff. Hmm... can these tools learn to prefer a certain format when they are piped int

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 12:06, Dave Airlie (airl...@redhat.com) wrote: [...] > > Wow thats pretty special... both an option called realize and a > > argument, that won't get confusing no matter how long it lives, also > > realize doesn't seem to be conveying a useful meaning

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 21.07.10 19:39, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote: [...] > > Who has been requesting this? What requirements did they give? The > > problem people seem to be having is the reasons you give in the above > > paragraph are reasons you yourself invented,

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
2010/7/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" : > I think it's time to re-inform everyone since they seemed to be so > focused on systemd and have completely forgot about upstart. > > Nobody has said anything that upstart was being deprecated nobody! That's not exactly what I'm talking about... though that's

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Karel Zak
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 01:29:03AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > And btw, you can even create automount points via > comment=systemd.automount as mount option in /etc/fstab. You don't even > have to place an .automount file anywhere. For the API file systems > however we decided to do just tha

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Mike McGrath wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > I think the bigger question is why are we doing this? > > > > There's some motivation here: > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html > I was pretty clear in ev

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 21.07.10 20:13, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > > > It appears that you're looking at this from the point of view of chkconfig > > as a tool which causes certain manipuations of the system to happen > > (symlinks changed). That's the backwards appro

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
On 07/22/2010 06:37 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Personally, speaking as a person_and_ a sysadmin, it would be > worthwhile to have a big freakin button somewhere that allowed me to > disable all native systemd config files and let me run sysinit style > files when the situation demands... ie crap

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Horst H. von Brand
Lennart Poettering wrote: [...] > Well, I think good UI means that you distuingish computer parsable and > human readable tools. "status" is human readable. "show"/"check" are > computer-parsable. Mildly disagree. It is nice to be able to remember from people-use what the output looks like when

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Paul W. Frields
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:37:20AM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: [...] > I'd wager that if we were having this discussion in a room with the > very same people, I think the emotional reactions over the areas of > conflict would be much reduced and personality quirk mismatches > wouldn't cause so much

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 07/23/2010 01:14 AM, Alexander Boström wrote: > But the thing to remember: If systemd-install is too complicated to use, > people will keep using chkconfig and service instead and ignore the > warning. That's why it's important to have something that supports > everything that systemd does while

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Alexander Boström
ons 2010-07-21 klockan 22:13 -0400 skrev Chuck Anderson: > But for basics such as "chkconfig service on|off|--list", there should > be compatibility. Yes. I basically use: chkconfig foo on chkconfig foo off env LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 chkconfig --list | fgrep :on |awk '{print $1} The rest I don't real

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:40:53PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > I hope this simplification sounds good to many of you. It does. Thanks. -- Matthew Miller Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences -- devel mail

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Alexander Boström
ons 2010-07-21 klockan 09:30 -0800 skrev Jeff Spaleta: > I'm not part of the zero regression fanclub. But I'd like to help do > what is reasonable to minimize the frustration of introducing a new > way of doing things. The deprecation warnings are reasonable to me. We > aren't going to reduce that

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 07/23/2010 12:10 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install > into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll > drop some of the options --realize had, and always imply that the init > system configuration shall be re

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:40:53 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.). > > > > > > but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with an > > > abstract computer o

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:04:44 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > But also HTTP is a good candidate. When apache shuts down it closes > the listening socket but will finish processing the requests it > already began to process. Would apache use socket actviation like > this it would hence be restart

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:35:22 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 22.07.10 11:29, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > they hence would have needed to be started one after the other, so > > > that every service using another services can be sure it can talk > > > to the one it need

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread seth vidal
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 20:40 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install > into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll > drop some of the options --realize had, and always imply that the init > system configuration

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.). > > > > but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with an > > abstract computer object. > > Dave, I am not a native speaker, but I have the exact (or may b

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Can we please stick to the technical issues here? That is, how we should > implement systemd to make the transition from upstart/sysv as painless > as possible, and perhaps some semantic improvements to the parameters > and command names Le

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 09:22 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > I am not getting the message from this thread that systemd developers > believe that. Rather, we get "it's clearly a matter of taste and > bike-shedding", and "I probably shouldn't even have bothered to even reply > to this mail of yours."

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 09:11, Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > Looking at what Windows and MacOS do in this area is probably > > healthy. Both systems rearrange sectors on disk and parallelize as much > > as possible. I think

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Miloslav Trmač
Lennart Poettering píše v Čt 22. 07. 2010 v 19:12 +0200: > What was discussed by FESCO was whether we should make it the default in > F14. And FESCO said yes. That's not what I understand from http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-06-15/fesco.2010-06-15-19.35.log.html#l-446 . Was

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 11:00, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Fedora. Now, who's right? It's unlikely that we can figure that out for > > sure, given that Fedora is a lot of things to a lot of people, so our > > two o

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Looking at what Windows and MacOS do in this area is probably > healthy. Both systems rearrange sectors on disk and parallelize as much > as possible. I think that's bascially a good recipe we should follow > too. systemd caters for the

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 07/13/2010 07:24 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Heya, > > as many of you probably know systemd got accepted as feature for F-14 by > FESCO a few weeks back. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd I just want to say that I am excited to explore this new system, but very concerned

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 11:31, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200 > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > 3. Robustness: The sockets stay around all the time, and always > > connectable. You can kill a daemon but you won't lose a single > > connection while doing th

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 18:48, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote: > Lennart Poettering píše v Čt 22. 07. 2010 v 18:35 +0200: > > If a service A uses functionality provided by a service B which in turn > > uses functionality provided by A then things willbreak regardless > > whether systemd is used or

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Miloslav Trmač
Lennart Poettering píše v Čt 22. 07. 2010 v 18:35 +0200: > If a service A uses functionality provided by a service B which in turn > uses functionality provided by A then things willbreak regardless > whether systemd is used or not. > > Cyclic dependencies cause deadlocks. Introducing systemd has

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 10:42, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote: > > how do you deal with circular dependencies in this case? > > I mean what will happen ? Will all services just deadlock? > > Malfunction ? Anything that guarantees correct initialization and > > behavior ? > > In addition to cir

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 22.07.10 11:29, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote: > > they hence would have needed to be started one after the other, so > > that every service using another services can be sure it can talk to > > the one it needs. I mean, how awesome is that? We can completely > > remove *any* kind o

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:42:19AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > In addition to circular deps, have any studies been done on disk > contention when you just start everything all at once? If we're not > careful we could actually increase boot time in some scenarios. I guess > one way to check would

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Mike McGrath
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200 > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > 1. Parallelization: we can completely get rid of any serialization of > > startup. We can start *every* signle daemon at the same time in one > > big step, regardless whether one of them

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

2010-07-22 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200 Lennart Poettering wrote: > 3. Robustness: The sockets stay around all the time, and always > connectable. You can kill a daemon but you won't lose a single > connection while doing that! Particularly for stateless protocols > (such as DNS or syslog) we can auto

  1   2   3   4   >