[Mageia-dev] [Mageia 2 specifications] Systemd or not systemd

Thu Jul 14 03:47:07 CEST 2011

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 09:48, Colin Guthrie <mageia at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
+
+> 'Twas brillig, and Eugeni Dodonov at 12/07/11 13:15 did gyre and gimble:
+> > If nobody objects, I could help with that. Mandriva certainly gave a
+> > large experience on how to integrate systemd into the system without
+> > killing traditional sysvinit alternative.
+> >
+> > It would also be extremely interested to have native systemd services
+> > which use most of systemd features (like sound and alsa scripts, which
+> > we discussed with Colin and Andrey Borzenkov some months ago but never
+> > got to implement properly).
+>
+> Massive +1 for systemd and massive +1 Eugeni wanting to help out! \o/
+>
+> I'll try and help out in bits and bobs too, tho' time is always a problem!
+>
+
+
+Ok, some n00b questions arise from my part, sorry if they seem too basic - I
+am only catching up with mga style of development :).
+
+Systemd 30 is out, with lots of nice changes, so I think we should use it
+now as we are quite early in the release cycle. It is working on my machine,
+but before doing something about it, I prefer to hear opinions :).
+
+Firstly, systemdrequires udev >= 172, what is the policy to update it?
+According to 'mgarepo maintdb get udev', it has no maintainers, does anyone
+objects if I grab/update it as well?
+
+Secondly, what should be the correct way of supporting systemd in a package?
+In Mandriva, I thought on adding a --with flag to enable/disable systemd,
+but in most cases it does (almost) nothing. All services which want to
+support systemd only need to place their files into /lib/systemd - and
+that's it. Should we support opting-out of systemd in specs? I believe
+fcrozat is having the same dilemma in SuSE now as well, and he settled on
+some common packaging macros.
+
+Almost finally, should the systemd files belong to the main package, the
+same way as they do with initscripts-based one (e.g., the package would
+provide /lib/systemd/system/%{name}.service together with
+%_sysconfig/rc.d/init.d/%{name} for example), with no extra subpackages or
+flags - or should all systemd-specific files go into %{name}-systemd package
+for example? What do you think?
+
+And finally, what does seems to be the best way of starting to use systemd
+in cauldron? I have thought on 3 alternatives:
+ - easy way, only having it packaged, but not
+providing/obsoleting/conflicting with sysvinit. This way, it will work when
+kernel is booted with init=/bin/systemd (the least invasive way)
+ - compatible way (like in Mandriva) - it is available, systemd-sysvinit
+conflicts with sysvinit, so if someone installs systemd-sysvinit, sysvinit
+goes away and systemd is run by default. This seems to be the most sane way
+to me (but I could be biased), and it is easiest one for testing
+ - ultimate way - systemd provides and obsoletes sysvinit and its goodies.
+This way, systemd will be the only one (e.g., highlander style). This is how
+fedora did it if I am not mistaken, but I am not sure if it the best way.
+
+So, that's it for now from my part..
+
+Opinions?
+
+-- 
+Eugeni Dodonov
+http://eugeni.dodonov.net/
+-------------- next part --------------
+An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
+URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20110713/27e74b87/attachment.html>
+