Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
Out of these three, only Ubuntu is not committed to systemd.
You might also note, that Debian isn't really committed to upstart also. They support the bad old SysV scripts as well.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name
Posted Apr 25, 2012 8:24 UTC (Wed) by paravoid (subscriber, #32869)
For the sake of simplifying your argument, let's keep your definition of a major distribution (fwiw, I wouldn't count openSUSE).
So, out of "Ubuntu, SUSE, RedHat (CentOS, Fedora) and Debian", the set of distros that have chosen systemd as their new generation init system is "SUSE and RedHat (CentOS, Fedora)".
That's a fact. How can this be interpreted as "almost all major Linux distributions"? If it can, then by the same definition can also be interpreted as "almost none of the major Linux distributions" :)
init in Debian
Posted Apr 25, 2012 12:58 UTC (Wed) by rleigh (subscriber, #14622)
Work is going on to enable sysvinit to run upstart jobs, which will enable packages to start providing upstart jobs in place of/in addition to init scripts. I'm not sure it's the best plan, but I'll accept it rather than stand in the way of preventing the adoption of better init systems. It's already in sysvinit git; it's not enabled yet due to requiring some additional changes.
However, it turns out that systemd does a much better job of sysvinit compatibility than upstart, which will make it much easier for Debian to transition to systemd rather than upstart. There's no need to replace the sysvinit scripts.
I've been doing a lot of work on sysvinit/initscripts to make it much easier to transition between sysvinit and systemd, as well as to support some of the features offered by systemd. While Debian will be using sysvinit for wheezy, switching is certainly something that could be considered for the following stable release.
A big black mark against systemd is the upstream attitude to non-Linux ports. If it wasn't so awful, we might have been in a position to push for its adoption in wheezy. As it is, that was untenable. While systemd uses Linux-specific features heavily, just having it /work/ on non-Linux, albeit without all the features being available, would be desirable. The attitude of not even being willing to consider patches for non-Linux platforms is a non-starter. Support for non-Linux platforms is also useful for portability to other versions of Linux which don't have all the specific features systemd requires--there's no need to paint ourselves into a corner of incompatibility through mandatory use of Linux-specific features.
Posted Apr 25, 2012 13:02 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Apr 25, 2012 13:22 UTC (Wed) by rleigh (subscriber, #14622)
Posted Apr 25, 2012 13:27 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Apr 25, 2012 13:46 UTC (Wed) by rleigh (subscriber, #14622)
There's also a significant cost placed on porters by being forced to work out of the main tree. This also needs consideration.
Posted Apr 25, 2012 13:54 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Apr 25, 2012 14:37 UTC (Wed) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103)
And even if you could write a portability patch, then in times of git it would be really easy to maintain it even out-of-tree.
Anyway, summary is: your problem is the technical unfeasibility of a port to freebsd, it's not our political dislike for such a patch and the maintainance burden.
If debian one day would like to go for systemd but at the same time still wants to go on with kfreebsd, then it has to pay the price for it, and just ship both init scripts and unit files in the packages. In fact we made this nice and easy by transparently overriding sysv scripts with native files if both exist.
Posted Apr 25, 2012 15:30 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335)
/ | ||
Posted Apr 25, 2012 15:43 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
Posted Apr 25, 2012 15:54 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
Sorry for the noise.
Posted Apr 25, 2012 15:58 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Apr 25, 2012 21:20 UTC (Wed) by slashdot (guest, #22014)
It's pretty obvious that it is possible to create a systemd compatible init for any OS, whether by porting the existing systemd or writing a new implementation, since nothing important is fundamentally tied to Linux.
There's also no point in rejecting a well-written non-intrusive portability patch (where "non-intrusive" means that it mostly consists of new files implementing Linux APIs for $OS, with minimal changes to systemd only where absolutely necessary).
Instead, please try to push it in Debian at all costs (possibly including doing a FreeBSD port yourself), since once Debian adopts it, the morons at Ubuntu will be forced to adopt it too, and sysvinit and upstart will finally die forever.
Posted Apr 25, 2012 22:05 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Apr 25, 2012 23:07 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
The .service file could even have this information and then systemd could set up top-level filters for open; FreeBSD would get it for "free" under the jails with selective mounts while Linux would need syscall filtering or automatic LXC creation.
Posted Apr 25, 2012 23:32 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
It does filesystem confinement just fine (using cgroups), along with secure per-app /tmp.
Posted Apr 26, 2012 2:48 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds