* Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> [2011-06-11 22:00]:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 08:28:39PM +0200, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
* Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> [2011-06-11 18:39]:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:41:56AM +0200, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
* Frederic Crozat <fcrozat@suse.com> [2011-06-10 19:04]:
systemd is coming for next openSUSE (12.1) scheduled next fall.
As far as I'm aware there was only one recent discussion on this this list about it [1] which started with the premise that systemd will be the default for 12.1. I'd like to know who has decided when and for what reasons that systemd will be the default for 12.1? More specifically, what alternatives were considered and why and how is systemd serving the openSUSE project better in the long term?
There is only one alternative, and that package is no longer being maintained or developed, so there really isn't anything else to choose from.
As for why to switch, you did read the long series of posts about systemd for admins, right? All of those things are stuff that users want, and care about, why would we not provide them?
This was not about offering systemd as an option, but part of the proposal ("phase 3") was to replace SysV init files with native systemd files. And an init daemon is not any arbitrary package, fully comitting to an implementation has long-term consequences. Hence, I would expect some kind of decision-making based on some real considerations rather than just following the latest buzz and the quite vocal promotion of its author.
And how do you know that was not done already?
I don't, it was and still is my initial question.
And also, please always remember, that changes happen here by people doing the work, not by people sitting around and discussing things, or dissing things.
That's not a valid argument when it comes to init which is probably the most important component of the system after the kernel. For such a change which directly and indirectly affects every other userspace component and, as I already said, has long-term consequences for the project (cost of implementation, cost of switching later etc.) I would expect a little more legitimacy. Apart from that a lot of packagers (probably including me) are expected to do work here.
Do you not trust the developers involved to get this working correctly? If so, offer to help out. If not, well, that's a different problem...
No I don't and I'm not interested in helping out with it since I disapprove with the direction it has taken (even in Redhat people seem to begin to disapprove if you look at fedora-devel). I would be interested in helping out with either improving the existing system or switching to something which is an init daemon and not a jack-of-all-trades attempting to replace half of the system.
I admit that I disapprove of its approach to cram everything but the kitchen sink into an init daemon (including stuff completely unrelated to init such as (auto)mounting, handling LUKS volumes, controlling the system locale, time, and hostname, replacing ConsoleKit, or the planned per-user session-startup functionality) rather thank keeping it simple and doing one thing well (a design philosophy which has served Un*x systems rather well in terms of functionality, security, and sustainability of codebases). So far it's not even clear where this will end.
It does one thing well, the rest is supported by helper scripts and plugins.
Do you have an alternative that you think should be used instead?
I'd really like to have an answer to my initial questions (including why we have to switch the default init system at all right now).
Because what we have right now sucks.
Seriously, it does, it was great for the 70's and 80's when things were static, but now, it makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. Linux has been evolving to support this type of dynamic, use only what you need when you need it, type of a system for a very long time now, and this is just one piece of that progression that has been needing to change for a very long time.
Yeah it sucks, and it has for a long time compared to its alternatives and I'm also familiar with SMF on Solaris, rc on FeeBSD and its modernization efforts[1], as well as upstart on Ubuntu. I'd still be interested in the reasoning why we have to switch right now and why it has to be systemd.
But the alternatives I am aware of are sysvinit which we are using right now and upstart, given the (im)maturity of systemd, the lack of clarity where the scope of systemd will eventually end, and my aforementioned concerns I'd consider both of these the lesser evil.
So what would make systemd somehow "mature" in your eyes? A major distro shipping it as their default init system? The developers working on it paid to do nothing else but support it and guarantee that it works properly for everyone?
I don't consider Fedora exactly as the standard for maturity (see fedora-devel and the Redhat bugtracker). Furthermore, it's not clear what direction it will eventually take and where it scope will end, what will come after the planned handling of user-sessions, a mail client[2]?
Or something else?
Oh, and upstart is a dead-end project, so that's not even an option, sorry.
Oh right, a year ago it was supposed to be the future. [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~trhodes/fsc/ [2] http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Zawinskis-Law.html -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org