On Monday 07 May 2012, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > well, that's another 10 lines of shell worst case. We haven't > > agreed on how exactly to handle it and make it configurable and > > stuff (especially as tools like monit cover that niche better) > > That's one of my issues with any init system that does not have > this built in: it needs to be written. And if it needs to be > written, in shell... > > > So, whenever a CGroup becomes empty we trigger a script. That > > script now can do ... well ... everything. > > ...things will go terribly wrong, unless you have a strict control > of the init scripts. Which you won't, if packages ship their own, > without a central authority that tells them what can and what > can't be done. > > While I dislike certain aspects of systemd, and initially disliked > that it got rid of my trusty old shell-based initscripts, it is > certainly MUCH harder to screw things up when you're given far > less power. > > When the power is in the system itself, not given to individual > scripts, that in my opinion, is much safer in the long run.
but sometimes it is necessary to do unusual things in init scripts to properly intregrate a service into the system. How to deal with that? Write shell wrappers that are executed from systemd? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201205082207.14216...@sfritsch.de
