Mailing List Archive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7  View All
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think it really needs to be accommodated in the same way as openrc
> init.d scripts. I'm not saying that maintainers should be required to
> create them if they're missing (they don't even have to do that for
> openrc init.d scripts). However, if users or other devs contribute
> them and vouch that they work, then they should be included in
> packages.

++ absolutely.

And if you want to change init=, edit the file, from a script if you wish
to automate it, after checking that everything is in-place.

--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 8 May 2013 13:37:51 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Bottom line is that none of this should really be inconveniencing
> maintainers much - nobody is required to create unit files. However,
> if a friendly user submits a bug with one attached, then the
> maintainer should strongly consider adding them to the package at the
> next convenient time.

Indeed no maintainer should be bothered with having his package install
a unit file, though two points.

A maintainer usually dislikes adding something contributed by a user
that he doesn't know about / can't verify . So letting systemd herd
picking unit files and committing them I think is reasonable. The
chance for screwing with a package by just adding the unit file are
close to zero even if not familiar with the package.

The other thing is those unit files really should come from upstream
and other distributions urge their developers to work with upstream [1]
Therefore I'd require an upstream bug for each unit that we add.


[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The other thing is those unit files really should come from upstream
> and other distributions urge their developers to work with upstream [1]
> Therefore I'd require an upstream bug for each unit that we add.

Makes sense, though I wouldn't necessarily make it a hard requirement.
Also, upstream units may not be usable as-is. They might reference
incorrect file locations (though I'd hope not for the most part), and
in particular dependency naming will always be a challenge.

Upstream rejection of a unit should certainly not lead to Gentoo
rejection of a unit, any more than their rejection of a script for
OpenRC should. Upstreams will likely be slow to embrace the
init-scripts-aren't-just-for-distros thing.

Rich
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 10 May 2013 06:09:32 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > The other thing is those unit files really should come from upstream
> > and other distributions urge their developers to work with upstream
> > [1] Therefore I'd require an upstream bug for each unit that we add.
>
> Makes sense, though I wouldn't necessarily make it a hard requirement.
> Also, upstream units may not be usable as-is. They might reference
> incorrect file locations (though I'd hope not for the most part), and
> in particular dependency naming will always be a challenge.

Adopting a package to distribution specifics is perfectly valid. But
here it's about adding functionality to a package that wasn't there
before. The usual reaction in such situations is to tell users to bug
upstream about it first.

>
> Upstream rejection of a unit should certainly not lead to Gentoo
> rejection of a unit, any more than their rejection of a script for
> OpenRC should. Upstreams will likely be slow to embrace the
> init-scripts-aren't-just-for-distros thing.
>
> Rich
>

If an upstream bug is filed and upstream says fuck off there is still a
bug report which would meet the requirement. Maybe some other distro
even filed the bug already for us.
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Ralph Sennhauser <sera@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Adopting a package to distribution specifics is perfectly valid. But
> here it's about adding functionality to a package that wasn't there
> before. The usual reaction in such situations is to tell users to bug
> upstream about it first.

Adding an init.d script is hardly adding functionality - it is merely
making the package functional at all.

> If an upstream bug is filed and upstream says fuck off there is still a
> bug report which would meet the requirement. Maybe some other distro
> even filed the bug already for us.

I agree that it is a good practice, but it isn't a requirement. We
don't even require package maintainers to submit bugfix patches
upstream, let alone init scripts. Maintainers should certainly be
encouraged to do so, but it seems like we have enough trouble
following rules like "don't touch packages you don't maintain, fail to
test them, and end up breaking them."

Rich
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files

What if openrc/upstart/runit devs start harassing upstream in the same way?

Strategically is great, but isn't exactly something nice to do.

Probably people caring about alternatives should start bothering
upstreams likewise and we'll see how it goes.

I'm sure that *everybody* would be delighted to provide those 4-5
different initscripts because one distribution or the other wants others
do the work for them...

I'm saying again that trying to get a good intermediate representation
and have a generator (eselect based maybe) provide the init-specific
file would be much better.

In the end initscripts are usually distribution dependent since they are
an integration step.

lu
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
I'll start answering from the last point since it explains
the remaining answers. Sorry for the shuffle.

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:41:27 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files
>
> In the end initscripts are usually distribution dependent since they are
> an integration step.

Integration? What kind of integration? The kind of integration which
results in various apps behaving differently depending on the patch set
used by distro?

The kind of integration which makes performing *simple* administrative
tasks completely distro-dependant? Seriously, I don't remember anymore how
to enable services on openrc. And I don't want to get back to the point
when approach a computer with Arch required me to find out how the necessary
tools are named there.

That said, Gentoo init.d scripts are an aberration. Either they
resemble poor hacks to change application behavior, provide additional
configuration or setup. Isn't init script supposed to *start*
an application?

When init scripts start to source additional code from external files,
poorly parse configuration files and reset databases, I believe we
reached the point of 'done seriously wrong'. And someone mentioned that
automatic restart of service is dangerous...

> What if openrc/upstart/runit devs start harassing upstream in the same way?
>
> Strategically is great, but isn't exactly something nice to do.
>
> Probably people caring about alternatives should start bothering
> upstreams likewise and we'll see how it goes.

Strategically? So we're now at war? Yes, I've noticed the few people
fancying a pile of hacks complaining about the 'so-wrong' systemd
breaking the unwritten rules of having a distro-specific pile of hacks
and trying to improve something for the sake of uniformity.

The point is that openrc/upstart/runit devs never cared enough. Maybe
they fancied their total control over init scripts or didn't feel
influential enough, I don't know.

Now that we have something that actually was designed with that point
in consideration, we have crybabies shouting 'but please use my init.d
instead! it's so much better because i used it'. The major difference
would be that systemd is something new, not just the pile of hacks that
has grown a lot of functionality over time.

> I'm sure that *everybody* would be delighted to provide those 4-5
> different initscripts because one distribution or the other wants others
> do the work for them...

Does it really? I more feel like it specifically doesn't want others to
touch their precious init scripts.

> I'm saying again that trying to get a good intermediate representation
> and have a generator (eselect based maybe) provide the init-specific
> file would be much better.

Did you see how systemd unit files look like? What kind of intermediate
representation do you want? I don't expect service descriptions to go
much simpler than this.

Of course, you could just mangle the names, change the format. Do that
for the sake of making things harder for others. Show how offended you
are by others not wanting your fancy init.d!

And eselect, of course. Another distro-specific pile of hacks which
doesn't do anything specific. I wonder if we will have to wait for
Fedora to replace it.

--
Best regards,
Micha³ Górny
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing that we as Gentoo
developers (Pacho?) had to write in order to merge GNOME 3.6 into our
tree.

And now that GNOME 3.8 is out, the game starts over again: logind is a
hard requirement, logind is part of systemd, starting logind (which
replaces consolekit) is not that trivial as you may think (and is the
thing I started to work on anyway).

And if this wasn't enough, it means that if you want GNOME 3.8, you
need to get logind, which may or not may get included in our udev
ebuild and if it won't, it means that you will be forced to use
systemd as device manager if you want GNOME 3.8, which is believe it
or not, the thing that Ubuntu did.

The problem will only increase in size as the clock moves.

And (and!) how does all this fit together with eudev? If the idea is
to either put logind in udev (thus, not creating a separate logind
ebuild), it means that eudev is already a dead end for GNOME users,
unless the eudev team is going to provide logind as well.

I don't want to start a flamewar here, I was the one who called
Lennart software lennartware, but science is science, and a reality
check had to be done: at some near point in the future, our users will
be forced to replace udev/eudev with systemd. Like it. Or not.

While I successfully use both openrc and systemd, I _do_ think that
(and expect to see) more and more users (and developers) will be
switching to systemd.
Is there anything we can do? Besides "being prepared", I don't think so.
Do we control upstreams? No, sorry.

So what do we want to do then? Isolate from the rest of the world?
(It's not a sarcastic question). I hope that everybody does their own
reality check.

--
Fabio Erculiani
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
> And (and!) how does all this fit together with eudev? If the idea is
> to either put logind in udev (thus, not creating a separate logind
> ebuild), it means that eudev is already a dead end for GNOME users,
> unless the eudev team is going to provide logind as well.

I picked this paragraph to quote, but this is more of an overall
response to your email.

Gentoo is about choice, but that doesn't mean that every developer has
to support every possible choice on every package.

Eudev not working with gnome is not a reason to hold back either
project. Not every option in Gentoo has to be compatible with every
other option.

Eudev is welcome to stay even if its developers are its only users.

I do agree in general that systemd seems pretty likely to take over,
but that doesn't mean that those who aren't running big desktop
environments can't make use of the alternatives, or that providing
alternatives is bad. I doubt you'll ever get Gnome 3.8 running on
Prefix either. :)

Rich
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
El mié, 15-05-2013 a las 15:41 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
> state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing that we as Gentoo
> developers (Pacho?) had to write in order to merge GNOME 3.6 into our
> tree.

Tetromino is the expert in openrc-settingsd I think, I don't know much
about it :S

>
> And now that GNOME 3.8 is out, the game starts over again: logind is a
> hard requirement, logind is part of systemd, starting logind (which
> replaces consolekit) is not that trivial as you may think (and is the
> thing I started to work on anyway).
>
> And if this wasn't enough, it means that if you want GNOME 3.8, you
> need to get logind, which may or not may get included in our udev
> ebuild and if it won't, it means that you will be forced to use
> systemd as device manager if you want GNOME 3.8, which is believe it
> or not, the thing that Ubuntu did.

Ubuntu is installing systemd to get their "udev" and "logind"... but
still using upstart (with gnome 3.8 packages)

But, well, I think the easiest solution would be to move to systemd and
run the parts we need from it even still booting with openrc
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On 15 May 2013 21:41, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
> state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing that we as Gentoo
> developers (Pacho?) had to write in order to merge GNOME 3.6 into our
> tree.

It's well known that Gnome is part and parcel of the whole vertical
integration circus.

> And (and!) how does all this fit together with eudev? If the idea is
> to either put logind in udev (thus, not creating a separate logind
> ebuild), it means that eudev is already a dead end for GNOME users,
> unless the eudev team is going to provide logind as well.

I'm not sure what the eudev team is planning, but it's been working
well so far for me. And since I don't use Gnome, it's not an issue as
long as other desktop environments are not making the same mistakes.

> I don't want to start a flamewar here, I was the one who called
> Lennart software lennartware, but science is science, and a reality
> check had to be done: at some near point in the future, our users will
> be forced to replace udev/eudev with systemd. Like it. Or not.

This isn't science. And unless you use Gnome, I don't see why we would
be forced to use systemd. KDE, Xfce, LXDE and Razor-qt are still happy
to support non-systemd operating systems. The way I see it is that
Gnome is making itself more of a non-option on Gentoo, Slackware and
BSD systems.

> While I successfully use both openrc and systemd, I _do_ think that
> (and expect to see) more and more users (and developers) will be
> switching to systemd.
> Is there anything we can do? Besides "being prepared", I don't think so.
> Do we control upstreams? No, sorry.

We don't control upstreams, but we still have choices. At this point I
only see Gnome and udev upstreams who are forcing their users to use
systemd. (There may be other projects too that I'm not aware of.)

> So what do we want to do then? Isolate from the rest of the world?
> (It's not a sarcastic question). I hope that everybody does their own
> reality check.

We say that Gentoo stands for choice. That is why we should resist
allowing systemd (and Gnome) to take those choices away with their
mistaken idea of vertical integration. We do have other options.

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 15/05/13 10:16 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 15 May 2013 21:41, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> And (and!) how does all this fit together with eudev? If the idea
>> is to either put logind in udev (thus, not creating a separate
>> logind ebuild), it means that eudev is already a dead end for
>> GNOME users, unless the eudev team is going to provide logind as
>> well.
>
> I'm not sure what the eudev team is planning, but it's been
> working well so far for me. And since I don't use Gnome, it's not
> an issue as long as other desktop environments are not making the
> same mistakes.
>

We don't know what we're planning either -- this is the first that I
heard sys-fs/udev maintainers are considering bundling logind. Gut
reaction is that eudev isn't going to do this, but the eudev team of
course need to have an actual discussion and decision on it as a project.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlGTovIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDVZQD/dJUbQ9oMl9BAiMuM+SwtETad
PkhRLDVaBEN2FqwXFQIA/3wPouBLnzHT1p1uNL5zfcc8Hf/RgFoKKbaZ/deZM6s2
=xukU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
> state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing that we as Gentoo
> developers (Pacho?) had to write in order to merge GNOME 3.6 into our
> tree.

> And now that GNOME 3.8 is out, the game starts over again: logind is a
> hard requirement, logind is part of systemd, starting logind (which
> replaces consolekit) is not that trivial as you may think (and is the
> thing I started to work on anyway).

> And if this wasn't enough, it means that if you want GNOME 3.8, you
> need to get logind, which may or not may get included in our udev
> ebuild and if it won't, it means that you will be forced to use
> systemd as device manager if you want GNOME 3.8, which is believe it
> or not, the thing that Ubuntu did.

> The problem will only increase in size as the clock moves.

And given that the end-plan according to the guys is to kill the
distributions shall we just close Gentoo now?

> And (and!) how does all this fit together with eudev? If the idea is
> to either put logind in udev (thus, not creating a separate logind
> ebuild), it means that eudev is already a dead end for GNOME users,
> unless the eudev team is going to provide logind as well.

Are there specifications regarding logind ? Is that so incredibly
terrible write and maintain 1k loc?

> I don't want to start a flamewar here, I was the one who called
> Lennart software lennartware, but science is science, and a reality
> check had to be done: at some near point in the future, our users will
> be forced to replace udev/eudev with systemd. Like it. Or not.


Science is science, systemd doesn't work with anything but linux, Gentoo
in theory should care about not-linux.

> While I successfully use both openrc and systemd, I _do_ think that
> (and expect to see) more and more users (and developers) will be
> switching to systemd.

Surely sysadmins will be delighted about that.

> Is there anything we can do? Besides "being prepared", I don't think so.
> Do we control upstreams? No, sorry.

I'm upstream for some stuff, vlc was already really close to force-kill
pulseaudio because of some cute problems, the thing got otherwise fixed.

Upstream does what is most sensible for the users, usually.

Freebsd, openbsd and some other operating systems are still there, they
have their reasons and usually work better in those fields than other,
I'm sure some people would wish to kill them, not going to happen
anytime soon.

> So what do we want to do then? Isolate from the rest of the world?

The world is bigger than that and we were making bridges around, *why*
severing them because somebody else decided for you?

> (It's not a sarcastic question). I hope that everybody does their own
> reality check.

Did mine, other experienced the hard way what I said many times.

Gnome doesn't seem a good reason to leave in the cold people that do not
even care about it.

lu
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On 05/15/2013 05:03 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
>> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
>> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
>> state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing that we as Gentoo
>> developers (Pacho?) had to write in order to merge GNOME 3.6 into our
>> tree.

To make it even clearer.

In order to support a good amount of users out there that do not care
about gnome and cannot use systemd we can see and bake alternatives that
are compatible enough.

Those that can't use systemd:

- those not using the latest glibc (and maybe uclibc)
- those not using a recent linux kernel
- not sure about cgroups-users, the lxc vs systemd problem should be
solved I hope

That's what I'm aware of.

lu
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:10:03 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> - those not using the latest glibc (and maybe uclibc)

Did you test this? Are there more specific details regarding this?
Which version don't work? Is it known why?

> - those not using a recent linux kernel

It works on all gentoo-sources kernels (I test them), is 2.6 meant with
not recent or are these kernels even older? Those kind of people likely
don't care much about upgrading anyway and thus don't need systemd, but
they rather enjoy to have a system full of security issues.

--
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:10:03 +0200
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> - those not using the latest glibc (and maybe uclibc)
>
> Did you test this? Are there more specific details regarding this?
> Which version don't work? Is it known why?
>
>> - those not using a recent linux kernel
>
> It works on all gentoo-sources kernels (I test them), is 2.6 meant with
> not recent or are these kernels even older? Those kind of people likely
> don't care much about upgrading anyway and thus don't need systemd, but
> they rather enjoy to have a system full of security issues.

Don't take it personally or as an attack on systemd. I think he was
just pointing out that there are many use cases where systemd may not
be appropriate.

I'm sure if you pulled a glibc from 10 years ago there would be a
pretty good chance that systemd wouldn't work, but openrc is mainly
based on shell (not even bash), so it would be pretty likely to work.
Likewise if you picked a kernel from a few years ago systemd with all
its use of cgroups and such probably wouldn't work, while openrc is
simpler. Certainly if you picked a FreeBSD kernel systemd will not
work. (Keep in mind the set of systems not using a recent linux
kernel includes all systems that don't run linux at all.)

In any case, there really isn't any "decision" to make here. As long
as devs want to support openrc it will be supported. Likewise with
eudev. As long as devs want to support systemd and udev those will be
options as well. The beauty of Gentoo is that more than any distro it
maximizes the options for our users. The changes in Gnome may
eliminate Gnome+openrc as a practical option, and when those teams
stop supporting the combo then users will have to make a choice to not
use one or the other. Gentoo is about choice, but that doesn't mean
that we have to offer EVERY possible choice. If somebody wants to
support my hp48 calculator as a Gentoo arch that would be great, but
that doesn't mean that I can start hassling teams to do the work for
me.

Gentoo is about working TOGETHER to provide choices, not about telling
others to make choices work for you.

Rich
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:13 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 05/15/2013 03:41 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> > ... GNOME ...
>
> And given that the end-plan according to the guys is to kill the
> distributions shall we just close Gentoo now?

Let's not exaggerate things, there are a ton of other DEs out there;
are all of them starting to depend on systemd specific features?

> > And (and!) how does all this fit together with eudev? If the idea is
> > to either put logind in udev (thus, not creating a separate logind
> > ebuild), it means that eudev is already a dead end for GNOME users,
> > unless the eudev team is going to provide logind as well.
>
> Is that so incredibly terrible write and maintain 1k loc?

Whether or not it is terrible, it is a time sink; is it worth doing it?

> > I don't want to start a flamewar here, I was the one who called
> > Lennart software lennartware, but science is science, and a reality
> > check had to be done: at some near point in the future, our users
> > will be forced to replace udev/eudev with systemd. Like it. Or not.
>
> Science is science, systemd doesn't work with anything but linux,
> Gentoo in theory should care about not-linux.

Indeed, the goal here is solely to make "systemd more accessible"; we
shouldn't pursue it to be the main init system or force it upon users,
unless there are indicators in the future that it became better (eg.
supports BSD, ...) for everyone.

Whether upstreams will force users remains to be a question to me, this
thread indicates a view from the GNOME users side; but that does not
target the wide audience that uses other DEs.

> > Is there anything we can do? Besides "being prepared", I don't
> > think so. Do we control upstreams? No, sorry.
>
> I'm upstream for some stuff, vlc was already really close to
> force-kill pulseaudio because of some cute problems, the thing got
> otherwise fixed.

Patches are still an option, and if patches become to tedious there
is the possibility to fork in the worst caste; if there aren't either
of those, we probably don't care enough to provide that piece of
software to our users. There's a moment one has to stop caring about
certain broken / incompatible pieces of software and throw them out.

> Freebsd, openbsd and some other operating systems are still there,
> they have their reasons and usually work better in those fields than
> other, I'm sure some people would wish to kill them, not going to
> happen anytime soon.

It's better to be neutral than to pursue something you can't accomplish.

> > So what do we want to do then? Isolate from the rest of the world?
>
> The world is bigger than that and we were making bridges around, *why*
> severing them because somebody else decided for you?

Indeed, I'd rather embrace than isolate; if something is useful for a
large share of users, isolating us from it won't make anybody happy.

> > (It's not a sarcastic question). I hope that everybody does their
> > own reality check.
>
> Did mine, other experienced the hard way what I said many times.
>
> Gnome doesn't seem a good reason to leave in the cold people that do
> not even care about it.

Used GNOME for months, then with 3.6 - 3.8 it started to break on me;
it didn't work on either OpenRC or systemd. While I was a happy user at
first, recent events made me lose interest in it; I think a discussion
regarding init systems and similar software shouldn't be focused on a
single DE, so I too am not sure why focus is laid on GNOME here...

--
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:25:11 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> Don't take it personally or as an attack on systemd. I think he was
> just pointing out that there are many use cases where systemd may not
> be appropriate.

In discussions, I try to not root for object X or Y but be constructive.

> I'm sure if you pulled a glibc from 10 years ago there would be a
> pretty good chance that systemd wouldn't work, but openrc is mainly
> based on shell (not even bash), so it would be pretty likely to work.

That is, if OpenRC is POSIX.1-2001 compatible; it doesn't use any APIs
or programs developed in the last 10 years, it doesn't depend on a
certain way a certain feature works that has changed in last 10 years.

Agreed though, shell changes less often than glibc; but that's merely
based on time, I can imagine in some point in the future there may be
no need for further changes in glibc the same way POSIX stopped
changing years ago; or in other words, it got standardized to be solid.

Going back from those details to OpenRC and systemd, one could say that
one tool depends on old and solid standards while the other depends on
new and developing technologies; there are reasons enough to choose for
either. Some things are better done by A, others by B.

That's not what I'm after, I want to know when either A or B doesn't
work; this is a matter of 1) trying to make it work for our users and 2)
documenting it to our users in which occasions it doesn't work.

Though, I went to take a look, if I were to trust the systemd ebuild it
seems that it doesn't work with glibc versions prior to May 2009 (2.10)
so I think we're in a quite good standing here; the amount of users
that don't upgrade for four years that need systemd is likely minor,
hence we don't need to document this and this doesn't form a problem.

> Likewise if you picked a kernel from a few years ago systemd with all
> its use of cgroups and such probably wouldn't work, while openrc is
> simpler. Certainly if you picked a FreeBSD kernel systemd will not
> work. (Keep in mind the set of systems not using a recent linux
> kernel includes all systems that don't run linux at all.)

I don't think the goal of making systemd more accessible has anything
to do with people that don't upgrade for a few years; it doesn't stand
in their way and given that it is out of the Portage tree we likely
don't support these kind of practices anymore. Support is a big word
and doesn't mean we don't try to help them if they have a solid case,
but I can't see someone with <2006 hardware wanting to run GNOME 3.8.

> In any case, there really isn't any "decision" to make here.

Then for what purpose is this discussion still going on?

> As long as devs want to support openrc it will be supported.
> Likewise with eudev. As long as devs want to support systemd and
> udev those will be options as well. The beauty of Gentoo is that more
> than any distro it maximizes the options for our users. The changes
> in Gnome may eliminate Gnome+openrc as a practical option, and when
> those teams stop supporting the combo then users will have to make a
> choice to not use one or the other. Gentoo is about choice, but that
> doesn't mean that we have to offer EVERY possible choice. If
> somebody wants to support my hp48 calculator as a Gentoo arch that
> would be great, but that doesn't mean that I can sta hassling teams
> to do the work for me.
>
> Gentoo is about working TOGETHER to provide choices, not about telling
> others to make choices work for you.

That's what I'm after, I have send a very similar mail two months ago.

--
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote
> Are we realizing that in order to keep systemd out of our way, we're
> currently writing and maintaining drop-in replacements for the
> features that systemd is already providing in an actively maintained
> state? openrc-settingsd was the first thing that we as Gentoo
> developers (Pacho?) had to write in order to merge GNOME 3.6 into our
> tree.

So Redhat, who are heavily into GNOME
( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_contributions#GNOME_developers )
decided to make GNOME depend on other Redhat-developed software (systemd
and pulseadio). Well... like... dohhhh...

Question... when Sun made OpenOffice depend on Java (also a Sun
product) did Gentoo developers run around suggesting that Java be made a
part of the core Gentoo base system? I don't think so. If a user wants
to run GNOME badly enough, he'll switch to systemd. I don't see why the
rest of us (i.e. non-users of GNOME) should have to follow along and
reconfigure our systems. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

> So what do we want to do then? Isolate from the rest of the world?
> (It's not a sarcastic question). I hope that everybody does their
> own reality check.

You are effectively calling not-using-GNOME isolationist. Let's just
say I disagree with you on that. BTW, see my sig.

--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:25:11 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> In any case, there really isn't any "decision" to make here.
>
> Then for what purpose is this discussion still going on?
>

No comment on that...

Maybe another way of saying things is that really the onus is on those
who want others to change their behavior to explain why they should
change. So, if you're seeking a change in behavior be up-front about
what change you want. If you're not seeking a change in behavior,
then there really isn't much point in going on unless it is to resist
a proposed change.

Personally I think a reasonable balance is:

1. Maintainers do not have to take initiative to create systemd
units. (status quo)
2. Maintainers should accept contributed units from the community,
even if they can't personally test them. This can be done at their
convenience. (slight addition in work for maintainers)
3. Maintainers can ask users to contribute units upstream if not
already done. I don't think this should be a hard requirement (ie
accepting a non-upstreamed unit is not a QA violation). If upstream
makes this difficult this should not be an excuse for marking bugs
invalid. The goal is to work with upstream, not harass them. (some
more work for bug submitters and maintainers).

Bottom line - maintainers don't have to go out of their way to support
systemd, but they should be friendly facilitators when others are
willing to do the work. This is no different from accepting desktop
entries and such even if you don't use a Freedesktop-compatible
environment.

Rich
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
El mié, 15-05-2013 a las 15:02 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
[...]
> No comment on that...
>
> Maybe another way of saying things is that really the onus is on those
> who want others to change their behavior to explain why they should
> change. So, if you're seeking a change in behavior be up-front about
> what change you want. If you're not seeking a change in behavior,
> then there really isn't much point in going on unless it is to resist
> a proposed change.
>
> Personally I think a reasonable balance is:
>
> 1. Maintainers do not have to take initiative to create systemd
> units. (status quo)
> 2. Maintainers should accept contributed units from the community,
> even if they can't personally test them. This can be done at their
> convenience. (slight addition in work for maintainers)
> 3. Maintainers can ask users to contribute units upstream if not
> already done. I don't think this should be a hard requirement (ie
> accepting a non-upstreamed unit is not a QA violation). If upstream
> makes this difficult this should not be an excuse for marking bugs
> invalid. The goal is to work with upstream, not harass them. (some
> more work for bug submitters and maintainers).
>
> Bottom line - maintainers don't have to go out of their way to support
> systemd, but they should be friendly facilitators when others are
> willing to do the work. This is no different from accepting desktop
> entries and such even if you don't use a Freedesktop-compatible
> environment.
>
> Rich
>

+1
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 15/05/13 17:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Those that can't use systemd: - those not using a recent linux
> kernel
And let's not forget those who aren't using Linux at all.
- --
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlGT9nUACgkQRtClrXBQc7UHiQD/R07lH+0F6ZARoODe2efrMVii
w5Ok3kTjChpjkvLKjt8BAJIh8Rt+wmljyfT+yjj3WY2BfFWx4Vxkt2lom6V4G0A/
=NqLn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:56:21 +0200
Alexander Berntsen <alexander@plaimi.net> wrote:
> On 15/05/13 17:10, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Those that can't use systemd: - those not using a recent linux
> > kernel
>
> And let's not forget those who aren't using Linux at all.

Why not?

- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlGT98MACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHnPACgqIhmnyvutdvIw0ijl4ralYyz
cwMAn24EP4lpA/jHAdxAv6lx2e74qxy6
=68cT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:38:14PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote

> It will probably be more than a decade before anybody is FORCED to run
> systemd on Gentoo. You don't even have to run udev on Gentoo.
>
> It will probably be years before the default even changes, assuming
> the trajectory of systemd remains as it seems to be.
>
> I think people are really getting carried away here. I believe the
> udev team generally wants to follow upstream udev, and there is eudev
> and busybox mdev for those who don't want that. No distro provides so
> many ways of avoiding systemd. I don't see that changing anytime
> soon.

I was replyiny to a poster who said...

> at some near point in the future, our users will be forced to replace
> udev/eudev with systemd. Like it. Or not.

You mentioned that it will be years before it happens. I realize
that this borders on the political, but if nobody objects *NOW*, in a
couple of years it'll happen. And the developers will say "but nobody
objected". You're right that the process takes time. It's precisely
because of that that unhappy users need to make their feelings known
now before it's too late.

--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: Making systemd more accessible to "normal" users [ In reply to ]
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:18 PM, <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> Question... when Sun made OpenOffice depend on Java (also a Sun
> product) did Gentoo developers run around suggesting that Java be made a
> part of the core Gentoo base system? I don't think so. If a user wants
> to run GNOME badly enough, he'll switch to systemd. I don't see why the
> rest of us (i.e. non-users of GNOME) should have to follow along and
> reconfigure our systems. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

It will probably be more than a decade before anybody is FORCED to run
systemd on Gentoo. You don't even have to run udev on Gentoo.

It will probably be years before the default even changes, assuming
the trajectory of systemd remains as it seems to be.

I think people are really getting carried away here. I believe the
udev team generally wants to follow upstream udev, and there is eudev
and busybox mdev for those who don't want that. No distro provides so
many ways of avoiding systemd. I don't see that changing anytime
soon.

This thread just started out asking maintainers to commit unit files
when asked, that's all. Anybody who doesn't want them can mask them.
If anybody feels eudev/openrc/whatever isn't progressing enough they
can contribute improvements to these packages, or pay somebody else to
do it for them. Developers work on what they want to work on. If no
devs can be bothered with systemd then it will die on the vine, and if
no developers choose to work on openrc the same will happen there.
Either is unlikely, though the "market share" of either is likely to
change over time.

Rich

1 2 3 4 5 6 7  View All