On Sunday 25 Dec 2011 15:52:47 Claudio Freire wrote:
You've been given examples of services that aren't either daemons or where a "standard code" is an oversimplification.
I reject the premise of this argument. AppArmor is implemented as kernel code and as such is pretty much the definition of a daemonised service. That the profiles are injected sequentially via scripts is probably in itself more a clue about AppArmors design than anything else.
If you ignore it, there's no much point in issuing an RFC I guess.
RFC is not "tell me every little detail you want included". It's a polite way of hearing arguements. *Any and all* of which *may and can* be ignored, excluded, argued against of even ridiculed.
The _request for comments_ has highlighted one area where systemd doesn't seem to have a remit or functionality to deal with. I would argue that this is more a problem of AppArmor using sysvinit as convenience than anything that systemd should even be concerned with.