1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
|
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 09:48, Colin Guthrie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mageia@colin.guthr.ie">mageia@colin.guthr.ie</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
'Twas brillig, and Eugeni Dodonov at 12/07/11 13:15 did gyre and gimble:<br>
<div class="im">> If nobody objects, I could help with that. Mandriva certainly gave a<br>
> large experience on how to integrate systemd into the system without<br>
> killing traditional sysvinit alternative.<br>
><br>
> It would also be extremely interested to have native systemd services<br>
> which use most of systemd features (like sound and alsa scripts, which<br>
> we discussed with Colin and Andrey Borzenkov some months ago but never<br>
> got to implement properly).<br>
<br>
</div>Massive +1 for systemd and massive +1 Eugeni wanting to help out! \o/<br>
<br>
I'll try and help out in bits and bobs too, tho' time is always a problem!<br></blockquote><div><br><div><br>Ok, some n00b questions arise from my
part, sorry if they seem too basic - I am only catching up with mga
style of development :).<br><br>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 :).<br>
<br>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? <br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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?<br>
<br>
And finally, what does seems to be the best way of starting to use systemd in cauldron? I have thought on 3 alternatives:<br>
- 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)<br>
- 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<br>
- 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.<br>
<br>So, that's it for now from my part..<br><br>
Opinions?<br clear="all">
</div></div></div><br>-- <br>Eugeni Dodonov<br><a href="http://eugeni.dodonov.net/" target="_blank">http://eugeni.dodonov.net/</a><br>
|
