[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
>>> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
>>> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
>>
>> Here's one part
>>
>> A good design would make the init process which is always running and
>> everyone must run.
>>
>> 1./ Be a small simple binary
>
> The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's
> /sbin/init, but not by much).

But that binary alone is useless, and certainly not *simple*.

>> 2./ Have no dependencies
>
> That is pure BS. If something has no dependencies, it has to do
> everything in the binary itself. You either end up with no features, or
> potential for tons of bugs.
>
> Having NO dependencies also means you have to bypass the C library and
> implement everything from scratch - that is the worst idea ever.

No need to overreact, the meaning is clear:

2. Have as few dependencies as possible, preferably dependencies that
are used widely in most systems and that have few dependencies
themselves, and are simple themselves

>> 3./ Be easy to follow, fix and lockdown, best fit being interpreted
>> languages.
>
> So, init should be a small binary in an interpreted language? Am I the
> only one who notices you are contradicting yourself.

No. The "services" (in systemd lingo) should be in an interpreted
language: e.g. shell.

-- 
Felipe Contreras