Re: Debian systemd survey
Am 22.05.2013 18:12 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org: On 22/05/13 at 14:45 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 08:16 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : - there are 300+ upstart job files ready to be imported from Ubuntu When you compare the time it takes to write an upstart job file or a systemd unit file, to the time it takes to proprely test it, I don’t think this argument makes any sense. If the only things we do for improving the distribution are to take stuff from Ubuntu because, well, it’s here, we might as well stop developing anything at all. Note that if it's there, and Ubuntu uses upstart, it has probably been tested. I was not suggesting that we blindly import upstart job files from Ubuntu, but a basis to start from is better than no basis at all. (I can see how my phrasing was a bit confusing -- sorry about that) Please also keep in mind that many upstream projects ship systemd service files. Therefore, most of the systemd work is already done too. Cheers, Matthias
Re: Debian systemd survey
Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 09:41 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:45:54PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: When you compare the time it takes to write an upstart job file or a systemd unit file, to the time it takes to proprely test it, I don’t think this argument makes any sense. Please leave the FUD at the door. Writing upstart jobs is not difficult; while there are some gotchas currently with process lifecycle (which will be fixed soon), there is also very complete documentation (for these issues, and generally). In which way do you disagree with what I wrote, exactly? Maybe my English was wrong, so let me explain it in simple words. Time to write an upstart job = short Time to write a systemd unit file = short Time to test an upstart job = long Time to test a systemd unit file = long Therefore: How much we should care of existing upstart jobs = little How much we should care of existing systemd unit files = little If the only things we do for improving the distribution are to take stuff from Ubuntu because, well, it’s here, we might as well stop developing anything at all. Sure; obviously the right thing to do is to instead take stuff from GNOME and freedesktop.org without regard to integration with our existing system, because if Lennart says it's right it must be so. Yes of course, because Debian is well-known for using fd.o and GNOME software as is, without patching it ever, and adopting new technologies blindly and very quickly, before they are well tested. Have it ever occurred to you that people might want to see systemd as default, not because Lennart said it, but because they think it is better than any alternative? Better than upstart *in the way it integrates with our existing system*, BTW. I understand it will be a pain for Ubuntu if Debian picks a different init system. I don’t think this is relevant for the discussion, though. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1369244732.13422.10.camel@tomoyo
Re: Debian systemd survey
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2013-05-22 15:03]: Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 08:16 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : - there are 300+ upstart job files ready to be imported from Ubuntu When you compare the time it takes to write an upstart job file or a systemd unit file, to the time it takes to proprely test it, I don’t think this argument makes any sense. If the only things we do for improving the distribution are to take stuff from Ubuntu because, well, it’s here, we might as well stop developing anything at all. Actually it sounds like you propose to stop developing and take everything from Redhat, Lennart, Gnome because it's there and they say so. Seems to me that luckily not everybody agrees with that approach (CTTE #681834, CTTE #688772)... -- 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/20130522175034.gd13...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: Debian systemd survey
Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 19:50 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit : Actually it sounds like you propose to stop developing and take everything from Redhat, Lennart, Gnome because it's there and they say so. Damn! I have been exposed. I admit to everything. I am merely an artificial creature, designed by Lennart and sent here by the GNOME cabal, to end Debian as it is and turn it into a useless system that is not the UNIX way™. Seems to me that luckily not everybody agrees with that approach (CTTE #681834, CTTE #688772)... Fortunately the CTTE failed to expose me before you did, since they ended up authorizing the dependency I surreptitiously introduced. kthxbye, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1369247299.13422.20.camel@tomoyo
Re: Debian systemd survey
On 05/22/2013 06:41 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:45:54PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 08:16 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : - there are 300+ upstart job files ready to be imported from Ubuntu When you compare the time it takes to write an upstart job file or a systemd unit file, to the time it takes to proprely test it, I don’t think this argument makes any sense. Please leave the FUD at the door. Writing upstart jobs is not difficult; while there are some gotchas currently with process lifecycle (which will be fixed soon), there is also very complete documentation (for these issues, and generally). systemd's unit files are still way simpler than upstart job files since these are just more or less a simple set of instructions to give systemd some hints on how to deal with the targets and services, it actually does most of the work automatically without the need of scripts at all (which are obviously still required for upstart). If the only things we do for improving the distribution are to take stuff from Ubuntu because, well, it’s here, we might as well stop developing anything at all. Sure; obviously the right thing to do is to instead take stuff from GNOME and freedesktop.org without regard to integration with our existing system, because if Lennart says it's right it must be so. Honestly, these personal accusations against Lennart are getting old and boring. Don't you really have any other good argument to bring up against systemd other than you dislike *one* of the systemd developers?* And while I don't support all of the decisions GNOME upstream makes, I fully support f.d.o as an actual free and independent organization which hosts the development of systemd. *When* there is one company that is trying to fragment the Linux world then it's Canonical with its urge to come up with one NIH project after another, be it Bazaar (which seems to have been abandoned by upstream with 2000 open bugs [1]) or the Mir display server which isn't supported by neither the X.org/DRM developers or any developers of desktops like KDE, Enlightment or GNOME. Adrian * As you may know, systemd is developed by a large amount of contributors. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- 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/519d1008.3040...@physik.fu-berlin.de
Re: Debian systemd survey
On 05/22/2013 07:50 PM, Martin Wuertele wrote: Actually it sounds like you propose to stop developing and take everything from Redhat, Lennart, Gnome because it's there and they say so. And another one. Why is it that almost anyone who isn't favor of systemd is directly going off insulting their developers or any of the organizations behind of it? You know why many projects are adopting many technologies that are developed by RedHat people? It's because RedHat is an excellent upstream and they are one of the largest contributors to the whole Linux software stack, be it the kernel or anything above. Distributions would adopt more innovative and useful technologies developed by Canonical, for example, if there were any. I can't actually think of anything by Canonical which has been widely adopted outside Ubuntu. Blame Canonical for being a bad upstream, not RedHat for being a good one! Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- 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/519d1163.9070...@physik.fu-berlin.de
Re: Debian systemd survey
Martin Wuertele m...@debian.org writes: * Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2013-05-22 15:03]: When you compare the time it takes to write an upstart job file or a systemd unit file, to the time it takes to proprely test it, I don’t think this argument makes any sense. If the only things we do for improving the distribution are to take stuff from Ubuntu because, well, it’s here, we might as well stop developing anything at all. Actually it sounds like you propose to stop developing and take everything from Redhat, Lennart, Gnome because it's there and they say so. Seems to me that luckily not everybody agrees with that approach (CTTE #681834, CTTE #688772)... This isn't appropriate. I'm quite confident that Josselin is making informed technical judgements in what he views as the best interests of the project and the best technological direction for Debian. It's certainly fair game to disagree with him about the wisdom of that direction, but please don't level these kinds of accusations. There are a lot of people who choose to use systemd on its own merits. I know of green-field Linux-based projects with no vested interest in any choice that have chosen systemd purely on its merits (and others that have not). This is not one of those decisions where there's an obvious correct choice and everyone else is just not looking at the problem properly. The CTTE bugs you cite were about a difficult tradeoff between integration and flexibilty, with strong usability arguments to be made on both sides. Just because the CTTE ended up disagreeing with the initial choice of the GNOME maintainers doesn't mean that Josselin did anything wrong. It means that we have a governance process for making controversial decisions; that's what it's there for. It's not always obvious what decisions will be controversial in advance, and different people working on different parts of the project can, completely in good faith, view the relative merits of different tradeoffs differently. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/87li76lthk@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Debian systemd survey
* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de [2013-05-22 20:57]: On 05/22/2013 07:50 PM, Martin Wuertele wrote: Actually it sounds like you propose to stop developing and take everything from Redhat, Lennart, Gnome because it's there and they say so. And another one. Why is it that almost anyone who isn't favor of systemd is directly going off insulting their developers or any of the organizations behind of it? Actually it's just a response to the ongoing insulting by joss to variouse participants on mailinglists. As usual he has a way of mailing that i find disgusting. You know why many projects are adopting many technologies that are developed by RedHat people? It's because RedHat is an excellent upstream and they are one of the largest contributors to the whole Linux software stack, be it the kernel or anything above. In many projects yes, in some no. Current kernel development, tough an understandable way to compete with Oracle, is not as cooperative as it was. Distributions would adopt more innovative and useful technologies developed by Canonical, for example, if there were any. I can't actually think of anything by Canonical which has been widely adopted outside Ubuntu. Actually in ubuntu happened a lot of multiarch development before it ended up in debian. Blame Canonical for being a bad upstream, not RedHat for being a good one! Actually that is not true. With some projects they both do a good job while with others they suck, it depends mainly on the actual persons involved. -- 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/2013052219.ge13...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: Debian systemd survey
* Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org [2013-05-22 20:45]: Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 19:50 +0200, Martin Wuertele a écrit : Seems to me that luckily not everybody agrees with that approach (CTTE #681834, CTTE #688772)... Fortunately the CTTE failed to expose me before you did, since they ended up authorizing the dependency I surreptitiously introduced. Seems like you haven't realised yet: only if a maintainer makes controversal decisions and several others disagree such a case comes before the CTTE. Having choices ending up twice within relatively short time before the CTTE should give the maintainer a hint. -- 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/20130522192730.gf13...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: Debian systemd survey
Martin Wuertele m...@debian.org writes: Seems like you haven't realised yet: only if a maintainer makes controversal decisions and several others disagree such a case comes before the CTTE. Having decisions appealed to the CTTE is not a punishment. It just indicates that a decision is controversial and the project was unable to reach a consensus. It's not always possible (and indeed not always wise) to avoid controversial decisions. Having choices ending up twice within relatively short time before the CTTE should give the maintainer a hint. It is, for example, probably a hint that the maintainer is working on something important that a lot of people care deeply about and therefore have strong opinions about. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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/87d2sikbaf@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: using upstart in Debian [was, Re: Debian systemd survey]
On 05/22/2013 06:19 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: I'm skeptical of the value of such a design in place of just using an initramfs, but the 'friendly-recovery' package in Ubuntu gives an example of to do this. live-config-upstart needs the same to be useful. personally i have no experience with upstart at all and would therefore welcome a patch to implement this properly in live-config, otherwise upstart support will be dropped with one of the next uploads. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.bauman -- 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/519d2bc5.7050...@progress-technologies.net
Re: Debian systemd survey
Hi, On 22/05/13 at 15:11 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On May 21, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org wrote: We don't need to select a single init system at this point, and it would As the maintainer of a package which is strongly tied to the init system, I disagree. Then, something I failed to find in the discussion was a discussion of how sysvinit / systemd / upstart could co-exist (not on a single system, but in the archive). I suggest that this is related to my first point. I understand that systemd replaces some parts of initscripts, could also replace syslog, etc. How do systemd supporters see that working in practice? What kind of feature duplication between init sytems should be expected? How much does it increase the maintenance effort? I am not strictly a systemd supporter but more like a modern init system supporter, and the duplication, increased mainteinance overhead and lack of QA are the reasons why I do not want to support multiple init systems in my packages and I do not think that Debian should either as a project. I agree that ideally, a swift and uneventful transition to a single modern init system would be great. Unfortunately, we have two strong alternatives, and no clear collective understanding of which one is better now, and will be for the future. I fully understand that supporting more than one init system increases the maintenance effort and the QA needs significantly, and that this is unlikely to be sustainable on the long term. However, this is a possible compromise that buys us time while we gain a better understanding of the pros and cons of each solution. What I failed to understand so far is what it would mean to support sysvinit, systemd and upstart from the point of view of udev (and other key packages). Could you enlighten me? What are the main problems to expect? Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian systemd survey
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Martin Wuertele m...@debian.org writes: Seems like you haven't realised yet: only if a maintainer makes controversal decisions and several others disagree such a case comes before the CTTE. Having decisions appealed to the CTTE is not a punishment. It just indicates that a decision is controversial and the project was unable to reach a consensus. It's not always possible (and indeed not always wise) to avoid controversial decisions. Having choices ending up twice within relatively short time before the CTTE should give the maintainer a hint. It is, for example, probably a hint that the maintainer is working on something important that a lot of people care deeply about and therefore have strong opinions about. Well said. -mz -- 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/caolfk3wxeoscjz06nkqg1qtompftkegp3sb05tz5onng5en...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Debian systemd survey
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:45:32PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 09:41 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:45:54PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: When you compare the time it takes to write an upstart job file or a systemd unit file, to the time it takes to proprely test it, I don’t think this argument makes any sense. Please leave the FUD at the door. Writing upstart jobs is not difficult; while there are some gotchas currently with process lifecycle (which will be fixed soon), there is also very complete documentation (for these issues, and generally). In which way do you disagree with what I wrote, exactly? Maybe my English was wrong, so let me explain it in simple words. Time to write an upstart job = short Time to write a systemd unit file = short Time to test an upstart job = long Time to test a systemd unit file = long Therefore: How much we should care of existing upstart jobs = little How much we should care of existing systemd unit files = little I see - yes, I misunderstood your argument, and thought you were claiming that upstart jobs take longer to write and test. The above makes more sense. I do think that in the context of Debian, upstart has the upper hand in terms of the testing owing to the fact that Ubuntu, which is very similar to Debian, has already worked out most of the kinks. But I'd rather demonstrate this instead of spending time arguing it, so... If the only things we do for improving the distribution are to take stuff from Ubuntu because, well, it’s here, we might as well stop developing anything at all. Sure; obviously the right thing to do is to instead take stuff from GNOME and freedesktop.org without regard to integration with our existing system, because if Lennart says it's right it must be so. Yes of course, because Debian is well-known for using fd.o and GNOME software as is, without patching it ever, and adopting new technologies blindly and very quickly, before they are well tested. There certainly have been cases of fd.o changes being dropped into Debian without dealing with the integration questions. mime - .desktop is a prime example of this. .desktop is clearly far superior - but that doesn't mean it's ok to drop the existing stuff on the floor. So if your comment is a fair critique of upstart proponents, then mine is an equally fair critique of systemd proponents. Have it ever occurred to you that people might want to see systemd as default, not because Lennart said it, but because they think it is better than any alternative? Better than upstart *in the way it integrates with our existing system*, BTW. Oh, it absolutely has occurred to me. And has it occurred to you that the upstart proponents likewise feel that theirs is the better alternative? I'd be happy to hear you expand on how you think systemd integrates better with the existing system in Debian. I certainly don't see that this is the case - particularly when the systemd dbus services, which people have told me are so essential a component of the GNOME desktop going forward, had no tested backend that integrated with the Debian locations for system-level config files until I provided one for Ubuntu. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian systemd survey
Matthias wrote: Am 22.05.2013 18:12 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org: Note that if it's there, and Ubuntu uses upstart, it has probably been tested. I was not suggesting that we blindly import upstart job files from Ubuntu, but a basis to start from is better than no basis at all. (I can see how my phrasing was a bit confusing -- sorry about that) Please also keep in mind that many upstream projects ship systemd service files. Therefore, most of the systemd work is already done too. Most? Really? Do you have stats for that? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com It's actually quite entertaining to watch ag129 prop his foot up on the desk so he can get a better aim. [ seen in ucam.chat ] -- 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/e1ufib9-0007zz...@mail.einval.com
Re: Debian systemd survey
On 2013-05-22 15:39:00 +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote: On 05/22/2013 04:50 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote: Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I went through the various init systems threads again during the last few days. My understanding of the consensus so far is the following: - Both systemd and upstart bring many useful features, and are a clear improvement over sysvinit. Yes, both are an improvement over sysvinit. Hrmm, I have not tested systemd yet, but personally I'm not conviced about the advantages of upstart: - Stops booting *somtimes*, does not provide any information why. I didn't report a bug yet as an almost black screen won't help in any way how to figure out why it stopped. Already that stops without any further information why and where is a sufficiently big design issue, imho. (Btw, in the mean time I belive this issue is related to /etc/mtab, but I'm not sure yet.). Well, a frozen boot without much information can also occur with sysvinit (e.g. due to udev). For instance, I had the following problem in the past: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=606192 -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20130523003328.ga4...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: Debian systemd survey
* As you may know, systemd is developed by a large amount of contributors. …as you may know, upstart is not only older than systemd, but is also used on a large amount of live systems, probably many times more the number of systems that have systemd installed.*⁾ Best regards, – Jubal *) Ubuntu, chromebooks, Kindles, RHEL6 and Centos6. -- Don't you have a home to go to?
Re: Debian systemd survey
On 23/05/2013 02:35, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Sure; obviously the right thing to do is to instead take stuff from GNOME and freedesktop.org without regard to integration with our existing system, because if Lennart says it's right it must be so. Honestly, these personal accusations against Lennart are getting old and boring. Don't you really have any other good argument to bring up against systemd other than you dislike *one* of the systemd developers?* I didn't see that as a personal accusation against Lennart really. It looked more like an attack on the sheeple who follow blindly what Lennart says, simply because he said it therefore it must be right. [...] Bazaar (which seems to have been abandoned by upstream with 2000 open bugs [1]) [...]. On the other hand, it would be nice if you keep your FUD to the minimum. Bazaar doesn't look abandoned[1], and 2000 open bugs is not uncommon. Nautilus and Rhythmbox themselves have 1000 open bugs each. [1] https://code.launchpad.net/bzr -- Kind regards, Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian systemd survey
I really like how this paragraph: On 23/05/2013 02:41, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: [...] And another one. Why is it that almost anyone who isn't favor of systemd is directly going off insulting their developers or any of the organizations behind of it? and this paragraph: Blame Canonical for being a bad upstream, not RedHat for being a good one! appear in the same post. The irony is strong here. Let not the pot call the kettle black. -- Kind regards, Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
bzr (was: Re: Debian systemd survey)
On 22 May 2013 22:02, Chow Loong Jin hyper...@debian.org wrote: [...] Bazaar (which seems to have been abandoned by upstream with 2000 open bugs [1]) [...]. On the other hand, it would be nice if you keep your FUD to the minimum. Bazaar doesn't look abandoned[1], and 2000 open bugs is not uncommon. Nautilus and Rhythmbox themselves have 1000 open bugs each. [1] https://code.launchpad.net/bzr Two commits this year? The only thing that makes it not completely abandoned by upstream is that occasionally there are a few maintenance bugfix commits done. For the record, I do use bzr (with http://jameswestby.net/bzr/builddeb/user_manual/merge.html ) in my normal Ubuntu/Debian packaging workflow. I haven't figured out how to git to work as nicely for that usecase yet. Jeremy Bicha -- 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/caaajcmzsv+wibph7dmoce2fq4d3cmtaqoe48axuogzw+6pd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Debian systemd survey
On 05/22/2013 04:53 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: - Neither systemd nor upstart are likely to be ported to kfreebsd soon, as they both rely on many Linux-specific features and interfaces. Though it should be easy enough to port OpenRC to kFreeBSD and Hurd, once it completes its support for the current init.d scripts. You completely forgot that option. The only thing that worries me is the cgroup thing, but probably it should be possible to fallback to .pid files in such case (in an automated way). Thomas -- 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/519d9aff.6040...@debian.org
Re: Debian systemd survey
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com writes: Matthias wrote: Please also keep in mind that many upstream projects ship systemd service files. Therefore, most of the systemd work is already done too. Most? Really? Do you have stats for that? Given the fact that sysvinit scripts are supported by systemd out-of-the-box, the basic work is already done. So why would you need any stats? I run all of my servers with the (ancient, by this time) systemd shipped with wheezy. There are exactly zero init scripts on my machines which don't work at all, and only one (collectd) does not properly delegate to systemd when invoked directly. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- 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/loom.20130523t063402-...@post.gmane.org
Re: Debian systemd survey
On 05/23/2013 01:45 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote: I understand it will be a pain for Ubuntu if Debian picks a different init system. I don’t think this is relevant for the discussion, though. It might be very relevant for many of us that our package works on *both* Debian and Ubuntu (and other derivative, including those who derive from Ubuntu, like for example Mint) without too much modifications. Some of my packages already incorporate some upstart script for that reason. I do all of my work in Debian, though whenever possible, I am happy to see that my development fits the (140+, according to distro watch) Debian derivatives. And I don't think I am the only one thinking this way (in fact, I *know* many other DD / DM think this way). So yes, being friendly for our downstream is very relevant to this discussion (even though obviously, that isn't the only point). Thomas P.S: Please note that I'm not taking any side above. Just replying to your point that it isn't relevant, which I think is simply not right. -- 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/519da071.8080...@debian.org
Re: bzr (was: Re: Debian systemd survey)
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Jeremy Bicha jbi...@ubuntu.com wrote: On 22 May 2013 22:02, Chow Loong Jin hyper...@debian.org wrote: [...] Bazaar (which seems to have been abandoned by upstream with 2000 open bugs [1]) [...]. On the other hand, it would be nice if you keep your FUD to the minimum. Bazaar doesn't look abandoned[1], and 2000 open bugs is not uncommon. Nautilus and Rhythmbox themselves have 1000 open bugs each. [1] https://code.launchpad.net/bzr Two commits this year? The only thing that makes it not completely abandoned by upstream is that occasionally there are a few maintenance bugfix commits done. While I can't imagine anything good coming from discussing VCS choices on debian-devel, I'll venture a reply... I wouldn't say that bazaar is completely dead, I just had a commit merged this week. Though AFAICT, Canonical no longer employs anyone to work on it directly, but it seems some number of bazaar hackers are still employed in other positions there. I have no idea what their long term plans are, but I'd imagine that Launchpad and Ubuntu will continue to be consumers of bazaar for the foreseeable future. No one has stepped up to drive development, and I do wish Canonical would make some sort of official statement about their intentions. There have been a number of interesting retrospectives from former bazaar core developers, for those that are interested: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2012q4/075330.html http://www.stationary-traveller.eu/pages/bzr-a-retrospective.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2013q1/075475.html I've been the Debian maintainer for a number of bzr plugins for the past few years, and I've recently picked up the maintenance of the bzr package as well. For the record, I do use bzr (with http://jameswestby.net/bzr/builddeb/user_manual/merge.html ) in my normal Ubuntu/Debian packaging workflow. I haven't figured out how to git to work as nicely for that usecase yet. I'd encourage anyone who cares about this workflow and these packages to continue any further discussion of bazaar in Debian over on pkg-bazaar-maint. Thanks! -- Andrew Starr-Bochicchio Ubuntu Developer https://launchpad.net/~andrewsomething Debian Developer http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=asb PGP/GPG Key ID: D53FDCB1 -- 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/CAL6k_AyPVeSrTVW=9bysfxvdtp4b-prsczm5fymouzmpz8r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Debian systemd survey
On 05/23/2013 02:35 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Honestly, these personal accusations against Lennart are getting old and boring. Don't you really have any other good argument to bring up against systemd other than you dislike *one* of the systemd developers?* [...] * As you may know, systemd is developed by a large amount of contributors. If you are tired of seeing the same arguments, don't post things which have already been debunked as well. You are doing the very same thing that you are complaining about: I already posted in this list the git log stats, and Lennart owns more than 40% of all the commits. So no, Lennart is not just *one* of the systemd developers, he's the main one, and by far. Thomas -- 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/519da160.1040...@debian.org
Re: Debian systemd survey
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:37:35AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: Matthias wrote: Am 22.05.2013 18:12 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org: Note that if it's there, and Ubuntu uses upstart, it has probably been tested. I was not suggesting that we blindly import upstart job files from Ubuntu, but a basis to start from is better than no basis at all. (I can see how my phrasing was a bit confusing -- sorry about that) Please also keep in mind that many upstream projects ship systemd service files. Therefore, most of the systemd work is already done too. Most? Really? Do you have stats for that? While it's a lot of work to query artibrary upstream projects, it is pretty easy to query a distribution. Fedora is likely the most unit-file-endowed distribution out there. According to repoquery, 724 distinct binary rpms provide unit files in /usr/lib/systemd/system, in Fedora 19. I'd guess that the majority of those files will be usable by Debian, which usually packages more than Fedora. This number must be compared with 1094 packages with scripts in /etc/init.d (quoting Lucas Nussbaum from earlier in the thread here), and packages having inetd or xinetd files. I'm not sure if this comes out to a majority, but it probably fairly close. Zbyszek -- 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/20130523045301.ga28...@in.waw.pl
Re: Debian systemd survey
Hi,
On 20/05/13 at 18:19 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
Hello,
In the past, we have had multiple heated discussions involving
systemd. We (the pkg-systemd-maintainers team) would like to better
understand why some people dislike systemd.
Therefore, we have created a survey, which you can find at
http://survey.zekjur.net/index.php/391182
Please only submit your feedback to the survey and not this thread, we
are not particularly interested in yet another systemd discussion at
this point.
I think that one reason why we risk having another init systems
discussion is that there hasn't been (TTBOMK) a good effort to summarize
the various point raised and your answers (as systemd maintainers) to
them. Such a systemd demystification effort would have been a nice way
forward.
I went through the various init systems threads again during the last
few days. My understanding of the consensus so far is the following:
- Both systemd and upstart bring many useful features, and are a
clear improvement over sysvinit. It is not clear which one of systemd
or upstart is the best on the technical level. Many of the differences
have grounds in differences of philosophy, which can easily be seen as
pros or cons.
- It is also hard to say which one is best on the development/support
community level. Upstart is strongly supported by Canonical, which is
an organization with which we are quite used to work with. However,
contributions to Upstart are subject to the Canonical contributor
agreement. Systemd has already been adopted by most of the other
major distributions.
- Neither systemd nor upstart are likely to be ported to kfreebsd soon,
as they both rely on many Linux-specific features and interfaces.
As Debian, we have two different problems:
1. We need to decide which init systems we want to support, and how.
2. We need to decide which init system should be the default.
1. Deciding which init systems we want to support, and how
--
I'm not talking about shipping them inside Debian (we already do that),
but about providing the necessary service config files (upstart job
files / systemd service files) so that users actually benefit from
switching to systemd or upstart.
We don't need to select a single init system at this point, and it would
make sense to try to support all of sysvinit, upstart and systemd, at
least for some time. (And, since sysvinit is the only alternative on
kfreebsd, we could aim to end up supporting (upstart OR systemd) AND
sysvinit, provided this proves feasible thanks to e.g. helpers to
generate init.d scripts.)
The policy has already been updated for upstart, and currently states:
(9.11.1) Packages may integrate with the upstart event-based boot
system by installing job files in the /etc/init directory.
(http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-alternateinit)
One clear task for systemd supporters is to similarly update the policy
for systemd.
Then, something I failed to find in the discussion was a discussion of
how sysvinit / systemd / upstart could co-exist (not on a single system,
but in the archive). I understand that systemd replaces some parts of
initscripts, could also replace syslog, etc. How do systemd supporters
see that working in practice? What kind of feature duplication between
init sytems should be expected? How much does it increase the
maintenance effort?
Something else I failed to find in the discussions was an evaluation of
the transition effort. We currently have 1190 initscripts, shipped by
1094 packages. How do systemd supporters see the transition to service
files? How can we make it easier?
There was a GSoC project in 2012 about generating sysvinit scripts from
systemd .service files. Was there some communication about its outcome?
Is it realistic to dream about a generator that would automate the
generation of sysvinit scripts, systemd .service files, and upstart job
files for a majority of our packages (the easy ones)?
Some infrastructure to track those transitions would be useful (status
page, graph).
As well, as, maybe, a tool to list locally-installed packages that lack
upstart of systemd support (think of {rc,wnpp}-alert).
According to some quick grepping in Contents-*, currently, we have 76
upstart job files shipped in Debian. Ubuntu has 301. And we have 204
systemd job files in /etc or /lib.
2. Deciding which init system should be the default
---
That decision is likely to be hard to make, but in any case, a survey
at this point is unlikely to be extremely helpful.
We don't need to wait until one of the alternatives is fully supported
by all packages to chose that alternative, but how the transition
happens for each alternative is likely to provide valuable input, and
more insight into the features of each alternative.
Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian systemd survey
Hi Lucas, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes: I think that one reason why we risk having another init systems discussion is that there hasn't been (TTBOMK) a good effort to summarize the various point raised and your answers (as systemd maintainers) to them. Such a systemd demystification effort would have been a nice way forward. This is exactly what I plan to do, and part of why I run this survey. I submitted a talk to DebConf where I will address the most common systemd concerns. -- Best regards, Michael -- 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/x6bo846o99@midna.zekjur.net
Re: Debian systemd survey
Hi! 2013/5/21 Michael Stapelberg stapelb...@debian.org: Hi Lucas, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org writes: I think that one reason why we risk having another init systems discussion is that there hasn't been (TTBOMK) a good effort to summarize the various point raised and your answers (as systemd maintainers) to them. Such a systemd demystification effort would have been a nice way forward. This is exactly what I plan to do, and part of why I run this survey. I submitted a talk to DebConf where I will address the most common systemd concerns. I assume you know that post, but it might be interesting for others: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html - Lennart's post if - of course - biased, but he manages to clarify most of the systemd myths and has an useful list of what these concerns about systemd are. Anyway, the survey is a great way to get feedback! :) Thanks for that! Cheers, Matthias -- 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/CAKNHny94jrAYoev3kZPbT=2qkpdx2q_hg3ms2udo3qcgzdb...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Debian systemd survey
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I went through the various init systems threads again during the last few days. My understanding of the consensus so far is the following: - Both systemd and upstart bring many useful features, and are a clear improvement over sysvinit. Yes, both are an improvement over sysvinit. It is not clear which one of systemd or upstart is the best on the technical level. Many of the differences have grounds in differences of philosophy, which can easily be seen as pros or cons. I think this is false, both as a description of fact and as a description of claimed consensus view. Systemd has advanced significantly further than upstart, and this is more a technical reality than a matter of opinion like something such as preferred GUI behavior; this is better compared to whether Linux or MINIX was a more promising platform for future development in the 1990s. There is a lack of consensus, rather than a consensus that it's a matter of opinion or philosophy with no clear technical arguments. - It is also hard to say which one is best on the development/support community level. Upstart is strongly supported by Canonical, which is an organization with which we are quite used to work with. However, contributions to Upstart are subject to the Canonical contributor agreement. Systemd has already been adopted by most of the other major distributions. A related point which I think is very important is the effect of Debian's decision on the larger community. Having Linux distributions permanently split in systemd and upstart camps would have major costs for the overall Linux community. Systemd is already guaranteed to live, but Debian could succeed in killing upstart, both by making it costly for Ubuntu to maintain and by having a working systemd setup that Ubuntu could easily switch to. Maintaining and extending such a split between distros should be seen as a big negative, regardless of how upstart would work internally within Debian. - Neither systemd nor upstart are likely to be ported to kfreebsd soon, as they both rely on many Linux-specific features and interfaces. IMO essentially irrelevant distractions such as effects on marginal systems like kFreeBSD shouldn't be brought up at all. As Debian, we have two different problems: 1. We need to decide which init systems we want to support, and how. 2. We need to decide which init system should be the default. 1. Deciding which init systems we want to support, and how -- I'm not talking about shipping them inside Debian (we already do that), but about providing the necessary service config files (upstart job files / systemd service files) so that users actually benefit from switching to systemd or upstart. The above seems as if it's based on a somewhat inaccurate view of what the actual benefits are. Systemd offers better functionality than sysvinit (both what users can do on their systems, and APIs offered to the rest of the system) even if some services don't have native service files. We don't need to select a single init system at this point, and it would make sense to try to support all of sysvinit, upstart and systemd, at least for some time. I don't think it's at all obvious that it would make sense to support more than systemd and the minimum level of sysvinit necessary for update support. From distro point of view, much of the actual benefit of converting scripts to service files is that service files are much easier to maintain and less buggy; trying to seriously maintain other forms for longer than necessary loses this benefit. Implementing support would of course teach maintainers something about the different systems, but large scale conversions and serious fit-for-use maintenance of all three systems sounds like a rather costly way to compare; it's unlikely to reveal much you couldn't already see from other distros and smaller tests on Debian. Though perhaps it'd help motivate a larger amount of people to learn enough to be capable of informed discussion and decisions (even if the information to be learned is already available without that effort). -- 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/1369191001.3628.56.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
