|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 21, 2014 9:09 UTC (Fri) by peter-b (subscriber, #66996)
In reply to: The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate by rleigh
Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

> Assuming that all these are true and are important problems which need fixing, a dbus API and service is still an awful solution to the problem. It could be trivially implemented in a simple library.

Trivially? Oh excellent! Since it's so straightforward, why don't you quickly knock something out over the weekend, so we can then put this whole discussion to rest? I"m sure Lennart would be really happy for other developers to get involved in tackling this problem.


to post comments

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 21, 2014 11:14 UTC (Fri) by rleigh (guest, #14622) [Link] (1 responses)

Trivial in the sense that it would be simpler and more portable to do via a standard library interface than via dbus. And the work has apparently already been done given that there's an implementation out there using dbus in systemd.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 21, 2014 11:17 UTC (Fri) by mchapman (subscriber, #66589) [Link]

> Trivial in the sense that it would be simpler and more portable to do via a standard library interface than via dbus.

Um. D-Bus *is* a standard library interface in practically every mainstream programming language.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds