On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
Systemd has lots of holes understanding many of those kinds of services that don't just start/stop.
No, however there is a massive hole of misunderstanding about how it works (or how it should work)
Perhaps. Time will tell.
My point this time was that there are lots of tasks related to services that don't pertain to starting or stopping them, and there's no hope of adding those to systemctl since they're so varied, nor would it be correct, and this is where rc scripts shine. They act as a central hub to general service administration, and it's good to have such a hub. It eases the sysadmin's task.
The problem is, they were built for a model that does not exists anymore, it will just confuse sysadmins and will result in endless reports and rants about it.
Motivation or origin doesn't matter. The merit of the tool itself does. And it's useful to be able to "rcservice what" or even just "rcservice" and be told about what you can do with it, beyond start/stop. Even "man service" would work. Thing is, "man service" rarely lists all the ways of starting and stopping the service which involve, sadly, mixing systemd, service-specific tools and/or sending signals to certain processes. Furthermore, it's good to be able to "rcservice something" from scripts, and if the way of doing that somthing changes, the script won't break. That's called interface specification, something completely lacking of services in general, which rc scripts fill, and something every developer should know is needed.
As Im pretty sure I am right and this idea is wrong,I will just sit and watch the show, time will surely force the proponents to accept that you cannot keep an illusion alive for very long. unfortunately that also means it is gonna break badly sooner or later.
Great talking to you. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org