Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (564 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] [RFC DRAFT] Phasing out sysvinit
  • From: todd rme <toddrme2178@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:25:21 +0100
  • Message-id: <CADb7s=uDWcdiM4o1T1uWirCiuVnkzHA-o2hbq8YR1=RvD95cJg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Cristian Rodríguez
<crrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi:

Supporting 2 different init systems comes with a large increase of possible
usecases and scenarios that are very difficult to support correctly,
specially in the long term.

This RFC proposes steps to permanently phase out sysvinit from future
openSUSE releases.



Phase 0

- Fix all *currently* outstanding bugs of systemd if any, note that this
step only deals with problems in systemd itself, not in service files
installed by other packages, udev, kernel, networkmanager or whatever other
thing.

- Determine which services currently lack of native systemd units.

- Add an rpmlint error with moderate badness for the start,complaining about
the lack of unit files.

This much seems useful regardless of anything else,

"Assuming" it can be done.  How would rpmlint know that a package
needs a unit file?  After all, most don't.

Also, is there a way the "badness" could be made more obvious.

I don't think any of my packages have a init script, but if they did
having a ever increasing badness would be totally hidden from me
unless I happen to be looking at the build log.  For stable packages,
I don't suspect many of us do that.

The badness could be set to 100000 or something like that that
automatically terminates the build.

Once this happens, I see three solutions to allowing building:

1. Have users add an rplintrc file. We can simply keep an eye on
rplintrc files.
2. The same as 1, but also require users submit a bug report or put
the file in a wiki to have the issue fixed.
3. Discourage users from using an rplintrc file. Instead have them
submit a bug report only, and have the file added to an rpmlintrc
whitelist, similar to dbus security checks currently.

1 would be easiest initially but make follow-up tracking harder. 3 I
think would make things harder for everyone. I think 2 is better,
probably with a bug report since this works for people who don't have
wiki access. There could be a proper tag or something for bugs in
this category so they can be easily tracked. Using bug reports would
also allow more substantial discussion of how to best fix the issue on
a case-by-case basis, allow for proposed scripts to be attached and
discussed, and overall allows for a more robust and transparent
decision-making process.

Although technically 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, you could
always let users use an rpmlintrc as a temporary workaround until the
file is added to the whitelist, I just don't see any advantage to this
method, and packagers will probably ignore the message and use an
rpmlintrc file anyway.

-Todd
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread