Gerrit Pape <p...@dbnbgs.smarden.org> writes: > To the best of my knowledge, neither cgroups nor d-bus require pid 1.
Indeed, which is why systemd-shim works. > Is this after all the root cause, a rather complex API implemented in > pid 1 although it doesn't require any pid 1 capabilities? Look at it this way: if your init system is *already* setting up cgroups because it wants them for its own purpose for process management, why would one create a separate mechanism to also manage cgroups instead of reusing that one? > Is this the "coupling" the proposal talks about? Yes. Basically, there's a heated philosophical argument over whether a collection of software that's developed by the same team should be designed so that each component easily work in isolation, even though doing so means more complexity and more work. It's a real argument; I've made both choices at various times on various projects, and I think anyone with experience in the field could (and should be able to) state a compelling argument for both sides in, say, a debate setting. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871tpisyb4....@hope.eyrie.org
