Am 16.01.2015 um 23:19 schrieb Luca Beltrame:
Michal Kubecek wrote:
As I wrote three times so far: in the attempt to break the promise that package maintainers wouldn't be pushed to replace init scripts by systemd unit files.
I reinstate my question: why keep init scripts? There may be reasons beyond "it was like this" and "systemd forced down our throats" or "there was a probmise". I'm interested in reading those other reasons.
Once no package in the distribution is relying on init scripts, the next "logical" step ("logical" from the POV of systemd lovers) would be to remove support for init scripts. Apart from that, once init scripts are only used by external packages, bugs in the code will not be found nor fixed.
(On my personal side, I find unit files much better to maintain, but my own universe is not statistically signficant.)
I personally also like that I can now write simple system services that just output their log file to stdout and don't have to take care of daemon(3) and similar stuff. However, as a package maintainer, if I have a working init script (for a nontrivial service), why break that and reinvent the wheel? Just look at ntp apache and ypbind (three random examples where I suffered badly), what crazy stuff needed to be done to make them "systemd-compliant" and how many bugs were introduced in the process (and AFAICT no old bug was solved by it). Why no just keep the init scripts for those? Surely could not been more painful. That was purely for political reasons. Exactly those politics games the systemd-critics were opposed to from the beginning. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org