Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 15-08-2012 07:50:42 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> > There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain >> > (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, mostly use >> > "!prefix? ( elibc_glibc? ( ...) )" >> > stuff at the moment. >> >> Half the packages in portage link to libc, though they don't actually >> declare this dependency due to the policy of not declaring policies in >> @system. If you got rid of @system then they'd need to declare them. > > Yeah, so just don't do that. In that case then just ignore that whole section of my post. :) Personally I consider the existence of @system a bit of a hack - like the big kernel lock. It works OK, but here and there we run into issues with it. Williamh pointed out that the plan for now is to virtualize openrc/systemd, which certainly is a solution to that problem. Being an evolutionary vs revolutionary solution it is probably the better next step. In fact, if you kept making many steps like that one before long @system would become mostly a big collection of virtuals anyway, and at that point its only reason for being would be as an arbitrary list of packages that ebuild maintainers shouldn't add as dependencies, at which point you could start stripping it away. That isn't unlike what was done to get rid of the big kernel lock - just remove it one instance at a time... Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 06:27:41AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > RE you concerns about OpenRC being in @system. Personally I'm a fan > of getting rid of @system entirely except as something used to build > install CDs or having some sets for convenience in building systems. > It only exists for a few reasons that I can think of: > 1. Devs don't want to have ebuilds that capture dependencies on every > little thing. A few well-chosen virtuals like "shell utilities" or > whatever might help with this. > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of > package.provided in profiles might address this. > 3. We'd need many more virtuals to handle situations like FreeBSD > where people don't what GNU on their systems. Right now if they are > system packages they just define system appropriately and ebuilds > don't directly pull in the GNU stuff anyway. > > I'm sure there could be others. Keep in mind that systemd is still > pretty new and largely out-of-the-blue so it will take time for Gentoo > to adjust to it. Right now OpenRC might install executables, but > nothing should be actually running them - this is just wasted > compilation time which isn't a bad interim state to be in. If > virtualizing udev is causing controversy just wait until somebody > actually makes a push to remove OpenRC from @system... This isn't in the plans. OpenRC gets installed everywhere right now, because it is a pdepend of baselayout. The plan is actually to tie it to a virtual which will be added to @system; I just haven't gotten around to doing this yet. [1] William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409385 pgp04cNZXn8Wa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On 15-08-2012 07:50:42 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain > > (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, mostly use > > "!prefix? ( elibc_glibc? ( ...) )" > > stuff at the moment. > > Half the packages in portage link to libc, though they don't actually > declare this dependency due to the policy of not declaring policies in > @system. If you got rid of @system then they'd need to declare them. Yeah, so just don't do that. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain > (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, mostly use > "!prefix? ( elibc_glibc? ( ...) )" > stuff at the moment. Half the packages in portage link to libc, though they don't actually declare this dependency due to the policy of not declaring policies in @system. If you got rid of @system then they'd need to declare them. However, use of virtuals or package.provided would address this issue - I was just pointing it out. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On 15-08-2012 07:32:45 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > >> Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies > >> > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of > >> > package.provided in profiles might address this. > > > > Huh? Not sure I understand this, but it suggests something which isn't > > true for Prefix to me. > > Do you want every other package in the tree depending on glibc, and > therefore trying to pull it in on a prefix system? (For those > unaware, prefix depends on a non-Gentoo glibc for the system call > interface.) Correction: Prefix uses a possibly non-Gentoo, host-provided libc, not necessarily GNU libc of an unknown version. There are only a few packages I've seen that depend on a certain (min/max) version of glibc, and when in use for Prefix, mostly use "!prefix? ( elibc_glibc? ( ...) )" stuff at the moment. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >> Rich Freeman wrote: >> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies >> > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of >> > package.provided in profiles might address this. > > Huh? Not sure I understand this, but it suggests something which isn't > true for Prefix to me. Do you want every other package in the tree depending on glibc, and therefore trying to pull it in on a prefix system? (For those unaware, prefix depends on a non-Gentoo glibc for the system call interface.) There are probably a few ways you could do it, but if you got rid of the implicit @system dependency then you'd need to handle situations where @system is something non-traditional and ebuilds are likely to do it wrong. Agree with mgorny's suggestion that anything required by PMS could be pulled in by the package manager, perhaps in an EAPI-dependent fashion. Oh, @system has another use I didn't mention - getting rid of some chicken-and-egg issues during the initial install. That can be addressed by providing pre-built stage1/2/3s, having package sets and scripts for their building, and so on. Maybe make world a world.d directory with Gentoo providing a starter file and users modifying their own addition, but being free to remove items and depcleaning them. Or provide a syntax for world to remove packages pulled in by a distro-provided world, etc. Many elements of this would benefit from public comment obviously should we choose to go along this road. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: > > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies > > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of > > package.provided in profiles might address this. Huh? Not sure I understand this, but it suggests something which isn't true for Prefix to me. > We could also make virtuals not pull in anything on Prefix in those > cases. Things like virtual/os-headers already do so. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:27:41 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > 1. Devs don't want to have ebuilds that capture dependencies on every > little thing. A few well-chosen virtuals like "shell utilities" or > whatever might help with this. Just note that PMS specifies a few requirements about those utilities as well. I'm not sure if we want ebuilds explicitly DEPEND-ing on things which are required by PMS. In any case, virtual/posix-system would be nice to have. > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of > package.provided in profiles might address this. We could also make virtuals not pull in anything on Prefix in those cases. > 3. We'd need many more virtuals to handle situations like FreeBSD > where people don't what GNU on their systems. Right now if they are > system packages they just define system appropriately and ebuilds > don't directly pull in the GNU stuff anyway. I doubt that's a problem. We've got a lot of virtuals and adding new ones shouldn't be a problem. I'd dare say it's better to add more virtuals than introducing USEflags to existing ones -- it requires less work from users. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other > distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to > make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most > of Gentoo developers really believe that every single possible > combination of hardware, software, init systems, and even OS kernels > should be supported. It isn't impossible for Gentoo to build a moon lander or for the Foundation to buy the entire planet - just hard. However, in practice things that require resources we don't have simply won't happen. Right now having decent KDE and Gnome support with all the bells and whistles that works fine on FreeBSD as well as Linux isn't that hard, because this trend towards vertical integration is just getting started. Running that on OSX under Prefix is already pretty painful (not sure if anybody has actually pulled it off - I'm sure it is possible). It will likely get harder, which means in practice what we'll probably have is a reasonable compromise which will never be quite as polished in any one direction as it could be, unless the end user does the polishing. RE you concerns about OpenRC being in @system. Personally I'm a fan of getting rid of @system entirely except as something used to build install CDs or having some sets for convenience in building systems. It only exists for a few reasons that I can think of: 1. Devs don't want to have ebuilds that capture dependencies on every little thing. A few well-chosen virtuals like "shell utilities" or whatever might help with this. 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of package.provided in profiles might address this. 3. We'd need many more virtuals to handle situations like FreeBSD where people don't what GNU on their systems. Right now if they are system packages they just define system appropriately and ebuilds don't directly pull in the GNU stuff anyway. I'm sure there could be others. Keep in mind that systemd is still pretty new and largely out-of-the-blue so it will take time for Gentoo to adjust to it. Right now OpenRC might install executables, but nothing should be actually running them - this is just wasted compilation time which isn't a bad interim state to be in. If virtualizing udev is causing controversy just wait until somebody actually makes a push to remove OpenRC from @system... Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On 08/14/2012 09:14 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > But it means nothing for someone who wants to open a box, switch on > the power, and go online to $socialmediasite or $emailprovider. Sabayon does a decent job for them. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other > distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to > make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most > of Gentoo developers really believe that every single possible > combination of hardware, software, init systems, and even OS kernels > should be supported. And even if it isn't harder, the main point for *many* competent users is that they have to do it themselves. Many extremely skilled peers of mine simply do not want to. They tried to do it, just not on Gentoo, and they have been burnt so badly by whatever distribution they tried that they basically swear off Linux completely for lack of time messing around, and just buy fruit computers. I have always appreciated the ability to customize, and I want to do it. The framework for customization that is Gentoo easily surpasses everything else that I have seen, and that's thanks to all the developers. But it means nothing for someone who wants to open a box, switch on the power, and go online to $socialmediasite or $emailprovider. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a >>> > "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things". >>> >>> Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo >>> (or Debian, or other general-purpose distros). He advocates that >>> ordinary users should use more purpose-driven distros, where all of >>> this stuff is less of an issue. >> >> That is not what I said, or mean at all. >> >> Given that I'm a Gentoo developer, and have been for a very long time, I >> find it very strange that you would think otherwise. > > I did clarify my post in a reply, linking to your post and of course > stating that you could clarify. Your words were: "I just don't > think it can be done well, sorry, which is why I strongly recommend > tightly-coupled distros for desktops for anyone (like Fedora or > openSUSE or Ubuntu), and Debian or Gentoo only for servers or embedded > systems where you know exactly what you are putting together, and why > you are doing it that way." > > I'm not a big fan of putting words in mouths, so if I misread that > than I apologize. In any case, I can't really argue much with that > statement as-is, although I'd probably carve out an additional > exception for enthusiasts or those who otherwise like to tinker under > the hood. > > If you want strong vertical integration, you probably will never get > as much of it with Gentoo as you might get with a tightly-coupled > distro. You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most of Gentoo developers really believe that every single possible combination of hardware, software, init systems, and even OS kernels should be supported. I myself believe that any Gentoo dev should support whatever the hell s/he wants to; I'm just interested in that if some of us want vertical integration, it should be easier to get. Right now every single Gentoo install from the official tree has OpenRC installed, because is pulled in by baselayout, and OpenRC also pulls sysvinit. And I'm not talking about some text files (even if they are executables) in /etc/init.d; I'm talking about executable binaries and libraries in every Gentoo install, even if the user has systemd, and they don't use OpenRC/sysvinit at all. Not to mention that they need to compile both packages if they ever upgrade (which doesn't happen that much, I agree). Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> > >> > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a >> > "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things". >> >> Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo >> (or Debian, or other general-purpose distros). He advocates that >> ordinary users should use more purpose-driven distros, where all of >> this stuff is less of an issue. > > That is not what I said, or mean at all. > > Given that I'm a Gentoo developer, and have been for a very long time, I > find it very strange that you would think otherwise. I did clarify my post in a reply, linking to your post and of course stating that you could clarify. Your words were: "I just don't think it can be done well, sorry, which is why I strongly recommend tightly-coupled distros for desktops for anyone (like Fedora or openSUSE or Ubuntu), and Debian or Gentoo only for servers or embedded systems where you know exactly what you are putting together, and why you are doing it that way." I'm not a big fan of putting words in mouths, so if I misread that than I apologize. In any case, I can't really argue much with that statement as-is, although I'd probably carve out an additional exception for enthusiasts or those who otherwise like to tinker under the hood. If you want strong vertical integration, you probably will never get as much of it with Gentoo as you might get with a tightly-coupled distro. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > > > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a > > "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things". > > Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo > (or Debian, or other general-purpose distros). He advocates that > ordinary users should use more purpose-driven distros, where all of > this stuff is less of an issue. That is not what I said, or mean at all. Given that I'm a Gentoo developer, and have been for a very long time, I find it very strange that you would think otherwise. greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:47:51 -0700 Christopher Head wrote: > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:03:01 +0300 > Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some > > > SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD > > > aside of OpenRC ? > > > > For Xfce it only means that xfce4-session will try to query > > credentials also from systemd, not ConsoleKit alone > > > > There are no plans of removing ConsoleKit support for Xfce wrt > > upstream anytime soon since Xfce is committed for long-term BSD > > support, and the Xfce development team includes developers, from eg. > > OpenBSD > > > > > 4. Finally, is there any reason why Gnome/Kde/Xfce wants to add > > > deps related to SystemD ? I don't understand why these desktops > > > want to depend on a specific Sysint > > > > || ( sys-auth/consolekit sys-apps/systemd ) or something can be done > > if the package tries to query both via DBUS calls > > As in, something needs to tell PolicyKit (polkit) that you are a > > local user and thus grant access to eg. USB removable devices > > > > What about those of us who are perfectly happy using neither one? I’ve > never had any of the Kits installed, and the recommendation has always > been to just put yourself in the “plugdev” group which has worked > fine. Is this going to continue to be possible, or is this going away? I can't say whether at some point GNOME wouldn't try hard to force this on us, but it will be still supported one way or another. There are still people (like me) working on alternate solutions, and those people will try hard to keep things working as they like them. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:03:01 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some > > SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD > > aside of OpenRC ? > > For Xfce it only means that xfce4-session will try to query > credentials also from systemd, not ConsoleKit alone > > There are no plans of removing ConsoleKit support for Xfce wrt > upstream anytime soon since Xfce is committed for long-term BSD > support, and the Xfce development team includes developers, from eg. > OpenBSD > > > 4. Finally, is there any reason why Gnome/Kde/Xfce wants to add deps > > related to SystemD ? I don't understand why these desktops want to > > depend on a specific Sysint > > || ( sys-auth/consolekit sys-apps/systemd ) or something can be done > if the package tries to query both via DBUS calls > As in, something needs to tell PolicyKit (polkit) that you are a > local user and thus grant access to eg. USB removable devices > What about those of us who are perfectly happy using neither one? I’ve never had any of the Kits installed, and the recommendation has always been to just put yourself in the “plugdev” group which has worked fine. Is this going to continue to be possible, or is this going away? Chris
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Il 12/08/2012 09:44, Michał Górny ha scritto: On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 01:29:43 +0200 "viv...@gmail.com" wrote: 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD aside of OpenRC ? It's not possible at the moment. systemd break non-systemd setups. Elaborate. I do my best to make it possible to be able to do at least minimal OpenRC boot when systemd is used (for fallback). Even during the time of 'systemd providing udev' systemd depended on udev-init-scripts to ensure that openrc was able to boot. enable systemd USE flag, start with openrc. Pulseaudio will break, I suspect automount will break too, worried the list will grow.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On 08/07/2012 03:47 PM, Sylvain Alain wrote: Hi everyone, for a couple of months now, I see on the list some of activities about OpenRC been ported to FreeBSD or OpenRC to Debian and other stuff related to SystemD. I have some basic questions about all that : 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD aside of OpenRC ? For Xfce it only means that xfce4-session will try to query credentials also from systemd, not ConsoleKit alone There are no plans of removing ConsoleKit support for Xfce wrt upstream anytime soon since Xfce is committed for long-term BSD support, and the Xfce development team includes developers, from eg. OpenBSD 4. Finally, is there any reason why Gnome/Kde/Xfce wants to add deps related to SystemD ? I don't understand why these desktops want to depend on a specific Sysint || ( sys-auth/consolekit sys-apps/systemd ) or something can be done if the package tries to query both via DBUS calls As in, something needs to tell PolicyKit (polkit) that you are a local user and thus grant access to eg. USB removable devices
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 01:29:43 +0200 "viv...@gmail.com" wrote: > > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some > > SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD > > aside of OpenRC ? > It's not possible at the moment. systemd break non-systemd setups. Elaborate. I do my best to make it possible to be able to do at least minimal OpenRC boot when systemd is used (for fallback). Even during the time of 'systemd providing udev' systemd depended on udev-init-scripts to ensure that openrc was able to boot. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
viv...@gmail.com wrote: > First problem udev/SD has is that it can't see all the file system labels, > for some reason it only see sda and sdb so it's able to partly proceed in > the boot sequence, mount / (root) but can't mount anything else. What software parses the filesystem labels when you boot with openrc? (I ask because I never use labels myself.) > a) SD does not re-calculate it's deptree/services when exiting from rescue > shell, it still try to start the "virtual" services as fstab would have > never modified, a reboot is needed systemctl --system daemon-reload ? > b) since it does not work even after reboot, there must be something else, > but what? this bring us to the point I'm not contesting that there is a problem with your systemd setup, and maybe it is a problem with systemd, but unless you know for sure maybe it's premature to say that "it" is systemd? I would investigate what the problem really is. > SD has mainly two things to debug boot `systemctl dump` and > `systemd-journal` Hm, debug boot like how? I mean: what problem did you want to resolve when you say that you were debugging boot? > impossible even to understand WHAT failed to start, not to mention WHY There are no logfiles for the individual services? > the magnificient binary log^W^W journal is kept on tmpfs (in ram) so > it's not even available at boot in different situation. I'm not sure what the purpose of the binary log is, maybe it makes sense to have it per session, but in any case I guess the services should be doing some logging of their own? > every try needed many minutes because SD wait for a long timeout before > going to the rescue shell I would be interested in understanding why there was a long wait, I mean: what was systemd waiting for? > - SD does not see anything else than systemd for boot. > Interaction with SD from a livecd, is difficult, almost all tools don't > work because SD is not running. I just work with the files on disk. The only time I use tools is if systemd is running and needs to get told about updates. I don't think there are any files that are not plain text, so I don't think any tools are actually required. > transported on remote server administration this is a *nightmare* If there's a way to boot into a shell prompt, even if it is just bash running as pid 1, then any system can be fixed. It requires knowing a lot about how the system works though, so a lot about systemd if the system uses systemd. Ie. knowing what files to change how in order to accomplish desired results. > various provider offer livecd like system which don't offer SD. > so no easy migration, no easy first install, every failure is > definitive, a no go I don't understand this at all. Even if we go with what you write, then I expect that some providers will start to offer an ecosystem of systemd-optimized experiences for those who want it - but I do not believe for a second that those would somehow be exclusive to other systems. > - the journal will never become simpler, can only grow, debugging things in > the shell will be nearly impossible for excess of data (and lack of useful > one if it continue this way) Configure it to write into files? > - virtual/autogenerated services are and will be difficult to cope with, > impossible to disable Hm, do they matter? > - every change in the early boot procedure will require reboot Is that different from another pid 1? > - which sum to: SD will work until it work, when something does not will be > a royal pain to solve _and_ nothing else other than SD will be available to > alleviate the pain This does not match my experience at all. I don't know what you did wrong though, your email wasn't very specific. :\ //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Il 07/08/2012 14:47, Sylvain Alain ha scritto:
Hi everyone, for a couple of months now, I see on the list some of
activities about OpenRC been ported to FreeBSD or OpenRC to Debian and
other stuff related to SystemD.
I have some basic questions about all that :
1. The SystemD and Udev projetcs are merged now, so what is the impact
on the Gentoo on a short term period ?
The answer is in the hand of others, I sincerely hope someone will fork
2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some
SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD
aside of OpenRC ?
It's not possible at the moment. systemd break non-systemd setups.
3. In a long term vision, can OpenRC still exist on a Gentoo
box(OpenRC might be able to boot the box then give the control to
SystemD/Udev for the rest of the boot process) or we will need to
migrate to SystemD to be able to use Gnome/Kde or Xfce ?
PID 1 has some own properties, but systemd can work at user privileges,
maybe
4. Finally, is there any reason why Gnome/Kde/Xfce wants to add deps
related to SystemD ? I don't understand why these desktops want to
depend on a specific Sysint
Because starting daemons it's much more error prone than everyone
thinks, at least everyone which didn't become involved in coding for it.
And now my personal rant with some considerations, from memory, may be
not totally accurate.
Tried systemd (SD from now) the other day, as everyone knows it need to
rebuild some part of the system with the "systemd" use flag.
These things broke when not started by SD, for example pulseaudio, had
problems also with auto-mount possibly more not even noticed.
This box has 3 disk:
sda) ssd on sda for gentoo whole disk (not partitioned)
sd{b,c}) /home /srv /boot md raid 1
First problem udev/SD has is that it can't see all the file system
labels, for some reason it only see sda and sdb so it's able to partly
proceed in the boot sequence, mount / (root) but can't mount anything else.
After putting in fstab the real /dev paths (something really old siecle)
manually mount them with systemctl --ignore-deps (the name of the option
is different please bear with me) works but the dependancies are not
satisfied, for two reasons:
a) SD does not re-calculate it's deptree/services when exiting from
rescue shell, it still try to start the "virtual" services as fstab
would have never modified, a reboot is needed
b) since it does not work even after reboot, there must be something
else, but what? this bring us to the point
SD has mainly two things to debug boot `systemctl dump` and
`systemd-journal` but the very much magnified advantages of the binary
log^W journal are totally invisible in this case because it's
difficult^W nearly impossible even to understand WHAT failed to start,
not to mention WHY
the magnificient binary log^W^W journal is kept on tmpfs (in ram) so
it's not even available at boot in different situation.
every try needed many minutes because SD wait for a long timeout before
going to the rescue shell, gave up after few hours of try, upgrading
Vista SP0 to current needed less reboot and time.
But this has been beneficial because I've now realized few important
things that will be probably never disappear from SD and will be there
forever, things that make me think this stuff is really dangerous.
List of problems that will _never_ be fixed
- SD does not see anything else than systemd for boot.
Interaction with SD from a livecd, is difficult, almost all tools don't
work because SD is not running.
transported on remote server administration this is a *nightmare*,
various provider offer livecd like system which don't offer SD.
so no easy migration, no easy first install, every failure is
definitive, a no go
- the journal will never become simpler, can only grow, debugging things
in the shell will be nearly impossible for excess of data (and lack of
useful one if it continue this way)
- virtual/autogenerated services are and will be difficult to cope with,
impossible to disable
- every change in the early boot procedure will require reboot
- which sum to: SD will work until it work, when something does not will
be a royal pain to solve _and_ nothing else other than SD will be
available to alleviate the pain
difficult to accept for the desktop, impossible for the server.
written by someone which like _some_ of the SD stuff.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Yeah me too, and the best solution win then :P 2012/8/9 Peter Stuge > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > So let people make their OpenRC+mdev systems without systemd, and let > > people make their systemd+udev systems without OpenRC. Everybody wins. > > I for one expect nothing less of Gentoo. > > > //Peter > > -- Salut alp Sylvain
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > So let people make their OpenRC+mdev systems without systemd, and let > people make their systemd+udev systems without OpenRC. Everybody wins. I for one expect nothing less of Gentoo. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:26 PM, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: > On 08/09/2012 07:12 PM, Olivier Crête wrote: >> Can we also have a desktop that doesn't us X? > > That is NOT likely to happen. X Windows is about the only *nix > windowing system around. > There may be others, but their use is rare. Practically all the > graphical interface software > uses X and its addons. /me looks down at my phone... :) But whatever, you write it, you write an ebuild, and if you're desperate I'll be happy to proxy maintain it for you. Last time I checked svgalib was still in tree... Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On 08/09/2012 07:12 PM, Olivier Crête wrote: > Can we also have a desktop that doesn't us X? That is NOT likely to happen. X Windows is about the only *nix windowing system around. There may be others, but their use is rare. Practically all the graphical interface software uses X and its addons. -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Olivier Crête schrieb: > Can we also have a desktop that doesn't use X? Yes, through Wayland or DirectFB. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 19:00 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:44:25PM -0500, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > > > > > Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork > > > it", then "do not keep your fork you are wasting time" once somebody > > > starts forking and/or working for an alternative. > > > > By all means, fork it. Just allow Gentoo users to use udev/systemd as > > upstream intended. And while we are at it, don't put OpenRC in the > > dependency list of baselayout, otherwise it gets pulled in (and > > sysvinit with it) for all systemd users even if we don't use it at > > all. > > Good idea. While we're at it, please also let's not make > systemd/udevd/dbus/pam mandatory. Can we also have a desktop that doesn't use X? -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:44:25PM -0500, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: >> >> > Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork >> > it", then "do not keep your fork you are wasting time" once somebody >> > starts forking and/or working for an alternative. >> >> By all means, fork it. Just allow Gentoo users to use udev/systemd as >> upstream intended. And while we are at it, don't put OpenRC in the >> dependency list of baselayout, otherwise it gets pulled in (and >> sysvinit with it) for all systemd users even if we don't use it at >> all. > > Good idea. While we're at it, please also let's not make > systemd/udevd/dbus/pam mandatory. I agree. Systemd is not mandatory; dbus is not mandatory, and thanks to your efforts udev is not mandatory, right? I don't know about PAM, but I'm not opposed for it to not being mandatory. So lets stop making OpenRC mandatory, and besides in a completely artificial way: nothing really depends on functionalitty provided by OpenRC. So let people make their OpenRC+mdev systems without systemd, and let people make their systemd+udev systems without OpenRC. Everybody wins. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:44:25PM -0500, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > > > Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork > > it", then "do not keep your fork you are wasting time" once somebody > > starts forking and/or working for an alternative. > > By all means, fork it. Just allow Gentoo users to use udev/systemd as > upstream intended. And while we are at it, don't put OpenRC in the > dependency list of baselayout, otherwise it gets pulled in (and > sysvinit with it) for all systemd users even if we don't use it at > all. Good idea. While we're at it, please also let's not make systemd/udevd/dbus/pam mandatory. -- Walter Dnes
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > I don't understand you. Greg is a Gentoo developer; he would never > propose for Gentoo to disappear. I wasn't suggesting he was saying it should disappear. I think his point was that distros like Gentoo shouldn't be the first place people go. I'm not sure I fully agree with that, but on the other hand I don't expect us to be having Ubuntu marketshare anytime soon either. He can of course comment here, but he made his comments publicly on Google+: https://plus.google.com/111049168280159033135/posts/V2t57Efkf1s > I just don't think it can be done well, sorry, which is why I strongly > recommend tightly-coupled distros for desktops for anyone (like Fedora or > openSUSE or Ubuntu), and Debian or Gentoo only for servers or embedded systems > where you know exactly what you are putting together, and why you are doing it > that way. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> >> I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a >> "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things". > > Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo > (or Debian, or other general-purpose distros). He advocates that > ordinary users should use more purpose-driven distros, where all of > this stuff is less of an issue. > > He does make a valid point - I'd never argue that a linux noob should > start with Gentoo. However, obviously I think Gentoo has its place, > and the world would be poorer without it. I don't understand you. Greg is a Gentoo developer; he would never propose for Gentoo to disappear. I don't consider myself (nor any other Gentoo user) an ordinary user; Gentoo is for power users, I believe. That is orthogonal to get a vertically integrated, tightly coupled system, and the advantages of it are independent of how easy to use is the system. The primary advantage (from my point of view) is that we get a unique, robust stack from kernel to userspace, where we don't need to worry about 20 different implementations of the same functionality. I think that's what Greg was talking about, and I agree with that. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:30:02 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: > On 08/09/2012 09:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200 > > Luca Barbato wrote: > > > >> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more > >> than libc is stupid and dangerous. > > > > But you are aware that glibc is probably much, much worse than most > > of those 'stupid and dangerous' libraries, right? > > Then we have a bigger problem, since everything in our system is based > on that. Yes, we do, sir. > >> Once that concept gets accepted then we could discuss about why > >> reinventing shellscript may not be that sound and other less > >> glaring, horrid and appalling design choices. > > > > Yes, exactly. So why does openrc reinvent that horrible shellscript? > > It is not re-invented, in fact we can use any compatible shell. Or anything else what can be spawned for shell. And a lot more what you won't expect. And guess what, people are actually doing crazy things with it because someone forgot to tell them how a init.d script should work. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On 08/09/2012 09:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200 > Luca Barbato wrote: > >> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than >> libc is stupid and dangerous. > > But you are aware that glibc is probably much, much worse than most of > those 'stupid and dangerous' libraries, right? Then we have a bigger problem, since everything in our system is based on that. >> Once that concept gets accepted then we could discuss about why >> reinventing shellscript may not be that sound and other less glaring, >> horrid and appalling design choices. > > Yes, exactly. So why does openrc reinvent that horrible shellscript? It is not re-invented, in fact we can use any compatible shell. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > [snip] >> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than >> libc is stupid and dangerous. > > No, it's not. You can (and should) depend on whatever libraries helps > to achieve the desired goals. If one of the libraries has a bug, guess > what? It should be fixed. Look, there is a balance here. This isn't really the thread to discuss it, but there is a balance between having your only password-reset UI being the passwd program, and having a 2MB suid root X11 application like IRIX. Most sane solutions today just have a non-root front-end, that calls a small well-audited suid app (perhaps just passwd). Sure, fixing bugs should be admired, but planning to be robust even in the face of future unknown bugs is the bedrock of secure software. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Olivier Crête wrote: > He has a perfectly reasonable argument that build time is really not > something you should be optimising for. Build systems easily become > overcomplicated if you try to make everyone happy, you do have to make > choices. Anyway, I'm not sure how that's related to the quality or > design of systemd. Well, much as I don't like it, build systems not being adequate for Gentoo is not exactly a new thing. I maintain a package that embeds its version in the about/etc boxes by pulling data out of git, which doesn't exactly work well when I try to install it from a tarball (and their branch for building outside of git has a bug and dies). Oddly enough upstream combines this without tagging releases. So, I patch it, and fork it to github where I can tag my branches and prep tarballs. And I occasionally pester upstream to accept my patches. But, such things are not that unusual. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a > "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things". Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo (or Debian, or other general-purpose distros). He advocates that ordinary users should use more purpose-driven distros, where all of this stuff is less of an issue. He does make a valid point - I'd never argue that a linux noob should start with Gentoo. However, obviously I think Gentoo has its place, and the world would be poorer without it. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200 Luca Barbato wrote: > Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than > libc is stupid and dangerous. But you are aware that glibc is probably much, much worse than most of those 'stupid and dangerous' libraries, right? > Once that concept gets accepted then we could discuss about why > reinventing shellscript may not be that sound and other less glaring, > horrid and appalling design choices. Yes, exactly. So why does openrc reinvent that horrible shellscript? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:53:34 -0500 > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I >> use it; not because of the build system. > > Actually, it's fairly representative of the design of systemd too: it > forces you into a particular monolithic, vertically integrated, tightly > coupled way of doing things, and if you try to deviate from that way, > then you're stuffed. I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things". And of course people who *don't* want that don't have to use it; just don't expect support from the people writing the code for a "vertically integrated, tightly coupled" OS, and don't complain when they reject your contributions when they go against their goals. Or in other words, if you don't want a vertically integrated, tightly coupled system, then use mdev, or Luca's fork of udev; if enough people really want that, they will thrive. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Not really, Linus has his own web of trust and he don't take stuff from unknown sources, he has his liutennants and every single patch and change must be reviewed by at least two other maintainers below Linus. After all, Linux does not belong to Linus and his branch is by definition of distributed system no better than yours. Exception being is that he generally makes right decisions and can be reason with. It would be much simpler to push _good_ feature into kernel than into gentoo [imho]. @systemd: I liked it in it's early stages but every month code gets more and more bloated and for (to me) unknown reason it's slowing on my machine every new version. It also did not deliver on promise of stability as early scripts I wrote don't work with latest version. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote: >>> > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation >>> > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio >>> > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it. >>> >>> This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a very >>> reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you code is >>> terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you. >> >> Sorry to call you on this one, but that is not the experience I had. >> >> I proposed adding configure switches to their build system to accomodate >> source base distros, such as gentoo, who at times want to use udev >> without systemd. I even went out of the way to make sure that I didn't >> change their default settings. >> >> Look at a thread on their ml called minimal builds along with their wiki >> page on minimal builds for Lennart's answer. He even went so far as to >> say that our package managers are broken, and there was absolutely no >> negotiating this point. We are wrong as far as he is concerned. > > By the same reasoning, Linus is even a bigger asshole. In the kernel > they flatly refuse to merge code from a LOT of people; that's their > job in the end. > > I read the thread where you proposed the changes to systemd's build > system. I wish it was accepted, but I also understand why they didn't. > As I said in other threads, they really don't care for source based > distros; and that sucks for Gentoo (and every other source based > distro), but it's their call. And it certainly helps them to keep the > build system simple, assuming that it would be used only by packagers > for binary distros. > > That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I > use it; not because of the build system. > > Regards. > -- > Canek Peláez Valdés > Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:53:34 -0500 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I > use it; not because of the build system. Actually, it's fairly representative of the design of systemd too: it forces you into a particular monolithic, vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things, and if you try to deviate from that way, then you're stuffed. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote: >> > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation >> > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio >> > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it. >> >> This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a very >> reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you code is >> terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you. > > Sorry to call you on this one, but that is not the experience I had. > > I proposed adding configure switches to their build system to accomodate > source base distros, such as gentoo, who at times want to use udev > without systemd. I even went out of the way to make sure that I didn't > change their default settings. > > Look at a thread on their ml called minimal builds along with their wiki > page on minimal builds for Lennart's answer. He even went so far as to > say that our package managers are broken, and there was absolutely no > negotiating this point. We are wrong as far as he is concerned. By the same reasoning, Linus is even a bigger asshole. In the kernel they flatly refuse to merge code from a LOT of people; that's their job in the end. I read the thread where you proposed the changes to systemd's build system. I wish it was accepted, but I also understand why they didn't. As I said in other threads, they really don't care for source based distros; and that sucks for Gentoo (and every other source based distro), but it's their call. And it certainly helps them to keep the build system simple, assuming that it would be used only by packagers for binary distros. That doesn't say anything about the design of systemd, which is why I use it; not because of the build system. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:12:46 -0700 Olivier Crête wrote: > This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a > very reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you > code is terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you. No no. If you agree with him, he's a reasonable guy. If you suggest that there's a possible alternative to a decision he's already made, or that some of his justifications don't stand up to scrutiny, then he ignores you. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: [snip] > Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than > libc is stupid and dangerous. No, it's not. You can (and should) depend on whatever libraries helps to achieve the desired goals. If one of the libraries has a bug, guess what? It should be fixed. And then you repeat until all the used libraries are as stable as libc (or more, if possible), and then the statement that "having your first process require anything more than libc is stupid and dangerous" makes no sense at all. (As a side note, I would like to see the bugrate of libpthread, libudev, libpam, libaudit, libcap, libdbus, etc. I'm pretty sure the latest versions are pretty much rock solid). That's in part what I like the approach taken by systemd (and PulseAudio, by the way); it wants to be a proper solution, and if in using something else they detect a bug, they push to get the bug fixed in the external library (or the kernel sometimes). They don't "workaround" real problems. It's the only way to guarantee that the *whole* stack (not only libc, or the kernel) actually works as it should. So yes, PID 1 should use whatever libraries it makes sense to use, and if there are bugs in them *they should get fixed*. Otherwise lets program everything in assembler, because maybe gcc has a bug somewhere. > Once that concept gets accepted then we could discuss about why > reinventing shellscript may not be that sound and other less glaring, > horrid and appalling design choices. The didn't reinvent shellscript; they replaced it with unit files. That's the best design choice about systemd, IMHO: the unit files say *what* a service should do, not *how*. And besides, you can still use shellscript if your daemon is so fucked up that a regular unit file doesn't cover your case. You should fix your daemon, really; but the option to use shellscript is still there. > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it. Really? I'm subscribed to the systemd ML, and the author accept all kind of contributions. If they don't agree with one in particular they explain why and the discuss a compromise if necessary. Doing the following in my git clone of the project: git log --format='%aN' | sort -u | wc shows a total of 337 contributors to systemd. So I really believe that you are talking nonsense in this particular point. > Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork > it", then "do not keep your fork you are wasting time" once somebody > starts forking and/or working for an alternative. By all means, fork it. Just allow Gentoo users to use udev/systemd as upstream intended. And while we are at it, don't put OpenRC in the dependency list of baselayout, otherwise it gets pulled in (and sysvinit with it) for all systemd users even if we don't use it at all. I maintain a really small overlay to use systemd exclusively in Gentoo, so I don't need to install OpenRC and sysvinit: https://github.com/canek-pelaez/gentoo-systemd-only/ http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/gentoo-systemd-only/ Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 13:31 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote: > > > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation > > > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio > > > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it. > > > > This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a very > > reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you code is > > terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you. > > Sorry to call you on this one, but that is not the experience I had. > > I proposed adding configure switches to their build system to accomodate > source base distros, such as gentoo, who at times want to use udev > without systemd. I even went out of the way to make sure that I didn't > change their default settings. > > Look at a thread on their ml called minimal builds along with their wiki > page on minimal builds for Lennart's answer. He even went so far as to > say that our package managers are broken, and there was absolutely no > negotiating this point. We are wrong as far as he is concerned. He has a perfectly reasonable argument that build time is really not something you should be optimising for. Build systems easily become overcomplicated if you try to make everyone happy, you do have to make choices. Anyway, I'm not sure how that's related to the quality or design of systemd. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:12:46AM -0700, Olivier Crête wrote: > > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation > > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio > > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it. > > This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a very > reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you code is > terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you. Sorry to call you on this one, but that is not the experience I had. I proposed adding configure switches to their build system to accomodate source base distros, such as gentoo, who at times want to use udev without systemd. I even went out of the way to make sure that I didn't change their default settings. Look at a thread on their ml called minimal builds along with their wiki page on minimal builds for Lennart's answer. He even went so far as to say that our package managers are broken, and there was absolutely no negotiating this point. We are wrong as far as he is concerned. William [1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/MinimalBuilds pgpJO19NWNasi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 10:42 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 08/07/2012 09:00 PM, Olivier Crête wrote: > > I expect that in the not so long term, systemd will become an essential > > user-space component of desktop Linux, just like crond, syslog, dbus, > > udev or glibc. Sharing that code just makes sense, that allows > > As in completely optional and easily replaceable? That would be a nice > improvement over the current "use it or die" attitude. Sure, you can use bionic and use a shell script as your PID 1. But no one would do that as part of a desktop/server computer. > Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than > libc is stupid and dangerous. It's lucky that systemd only requires libc, libc-like libraries (libselinux, libcap, libaudit, librt, etc) and it's own libraries (ie, maintained by the systemd team) then? > Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation > is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio > we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it. This is bullshit, if you have good reasoned arguments, Lennart is a very reasonable guy, but if you just say "your ideas are shit, you code is terrible", then yes, he'll just ignore you. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On 08/07/2012 09:00 PM, Olivier Crête wrote: > I expect that in the not so long term, systemd will become an essential > user-space component of desktop Linux, just like crond, syslog, dbus, > udev or glibc. Sharing that code just makes sense, that allows As in completely optional and easily replaceable? That would be a nice improvement over the current "use it or die" attitude. > distributions to focus on their strength instead of having to maintain a > nightmare of shell scripts. Sure you can do a Android and write your own > crappier version, but that doesn't gain you anything. Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than libc is stupid and dangerous. Once that concept gets accepted then we could discuss about why reinventing shellscript may not be that sound and other less glaring, horrid and appalling design choices. Most ideas behind systemd are interesting, their current implementation is sometimes completely wrong and given the experience with pulseaudio we all know that they won't change even if you provide code for it. Obviously it is always fun seeing people first say "accept it or fork it", then "do not keep your fork you are wasting time" once somebody starts forking and/or working for an alternative. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > You'd have to talk to them, but I believe their goal is to go for more > of a vertically-integrated experience (which fits more with Gnome or > KDE than Xfce, but again the last I'd heard only Gnome was going in > this direction so far). Ubuntu is doing similar things with > Unity/Upstart. It's worth noting that KDE is actually becoming more independent, as KDE Frameworks 5 is going to focus on having smaller separate reusable components, with fewer monolithic dependencies.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Dale wrote: > Now, since Walter didn't like the way things are going, can he write > code and be left in peace to do so? Maybe have a little bit of support > while he is doing it? ++ I can't say I think that preferring mdev over an initramfs is a good choice, but I can say that I prefer that people have the choice to make in the first place. Nobody can expect anybody to maintain something for them, but if some are willing to step up and give Gentoo a bit of a broader perspective that is what we're all about. Where else are you going to find a linux distro that can run a fair bit of their repository on Interix of all things? We all get grumpy from time to time, but I've learned that if you're going to speak up it is best if you're doing so to offer something better, and not just to gripe. My hat is always off to those who write code, and the community around Gentoo that has allowed us to choose whether to run it. Systemd, Dracut, Wayland, and more - bring it on, and if my writing an odd init script/unit/whatever for a package I maintain makes it possible to do something genuinely new with Gentoo, then file all the bugs you want. :) Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:31:32 -0400 > Michael Mol wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Michał Górny >> wrote: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:33:59 -0400 >>> Sylvain Alain wrote: >>> The KDE team seems to work on that too : http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134052539215508&w=2 >>> it's actually worth it. >>> more user-spread FUD or however you like to call it on the topic >>> than I'm not sure if *devs* are actually working on that. I believe >>> there's >> Perhaps not official Gentoo devs, but users taking development >> initiative to solve a problem in userland. I'm not an official Gentoo >> dev, either, but I think it'd be a very bad idea to discourage or >> ridicule such initiative. Someone putting in that much effort in light >> of all the information already available isn't something that should >> be taken lightly! > I don't want to offend anyone but let's be honest: people start many > initiatives, and they are not always right, no matter how many effort > is put. I don't want to discourage it but sometimes I dislike > the importunity accompanying it. > > Users are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm > the rest of users. And I'm afraid that too much enthusiasm over mdev > will actually cause a number of users to end up being disappointed > that one or another magic requiring udev no longer works. User perspective follows: What I don't like about the way Walter, mdev, is being treated is this. People say that if you don't like the way udev is going, WRITE CODE. If you are not going to write code, don't complain about udev. Then Walter, I think I got the name right, comes along and comes up with a alternative for udev that seems to work well for the people using it. Then people complain because he is actually stepping up and WRITING CODE. Well, it seems a person can't win on this. Some, no names mentioned, need to make up their minds. Either listen when people don't like the way things are going or let people write code to have a alternative to whatever people are not liking and don't complain because people are stepping up and doing something about it, for example, writing code. As to mdev not being as feature rich as udev, well, some people don't need the features udev has and I don't think anyone is saying mdev is the same as udev. It even says on the wiki that there are some situations where it should not even be tried because it is known to not work. Given that, if a person tries to use mdev to replace udev in a situation where it is known not to work, then they should read more closely. It's not Walters fault, it's the person in the chair. Now, since Walter didn't like the way things are going, can he write code and be left in peace to do so? Maybe have a little bit of support while he is doing it? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:31:32 -0400 Michael Mol wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Michał Górny > wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:33:59 -0400 > > Sylvain Alain wrote: > > > >> The KDE team seems to work on that too : > >> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134052539215508&w=2 > > > > it's actually worth it. > > more user-spread FUD or however you like to call it on the topic > > than I'm not sure if *devs* are actually working on that. I believe > > there's > > Perhaps not official Gentoo devs, but users taking development > initiative to solve a problem in userland. I'm not an official Gentoo > dev, either, but I think it'd be a very bad idea to discourage or > ridicule such initiative. Someone putting in that much effort in light > of all the information already available isn't something that should > be taken lightly! I don't want to offend anyone but let's be honest: people start many initiatives, and they are not always right, no matter how many effort is put. I don't want to discourage it but sometimes I dislike the importunity accompanying it. Users are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm the rest of users. And I'm afraid that too much enthusiasm over mdev will actually cause a number of users to end up being disappointed that one or another magic requiring udev no longer works. > > > > >> Now I understand why some devs are working hard to make Mdev > >> working with OpenRC. > > > > > different, you could as well disable USE=udev and use regular udev. > > > equivalent to KDE/GNOME/whatever without anything? And if it's no > > > But you are aware that KDE/GNOME/whatever+mdev would be practically > > (My reason for replying...looks like a few chunks of text got lost > here.) Sorry for the confusion caused to you and the others. You need to read it bottom-to-top. I reversed the line order for Sylvain who seems to prefer reading that way. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Hi, Let's cut the FUD. On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 08:47 -0400, Sylvain Alain wrote: > 1. The SystemD and Udev projetcs are merged now, so what is the impact > on the Gentoo on a short term period ? Only the build system is merged, they're still separate binaries. > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some > SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD > aside of OpenRC ? The APIs that GNOME is using from systemd are simple, well designed and well documented D-Bus APIs [1][2][3]. They are implemented by simple binaries separate from the core systemd. Legacy init systems can just re-use them as-is. Also, systemd includes logind, which replaces ConsoleKit with a much better design. > 4. Finally, is there any reason why Gnome/Kde/Xfce wants to add deps related to SystemD ? I don't understand why these desktops want to depend on a specific Sysint Old versions of GNOME (and KDE, XFCE, etc) had to have distro-specific code for a bunch of things, such as changing the timezone, the system locale or the hostname. Because these things are in separate places in every distribution for historical reason. So every desktop had to re-implement these things for every distribution, making a lot of duplicated code. The goal is to have a single set of tools using a common D-Bus API that you only have to implement once per distribution and that every desktop can use. > 3. In a long term vision, can OpenRC still exist on a Gentoo > box(OpenRC might be able to boot the box then give the control to > SystemD/Udev for the rest of the boot process) or we will need to > migrate to SystemD to be able to use Gnome/Kde or Xfce ? I expect that in the not so long term, systemd will become an essential user-space component of desktop Linux, just like crond, syslog, dbus, udev or glibc. Sharing that code just makes sense, that allows distributions to focus on their strength instead of having to maintain a nightmare of shell scripts. Sure you can do a Android and write your own crappier version, but that doesn't gain you anything. Refs: [1] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/hostnamed [2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/timedated [3] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/localed [4] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/logind -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:33:59 -0400 > Sylvain Alain wrote: > >> The KDE team seems to work on that too : >> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134052539215508&w=2 > > it's actually worth it. > more user-spread FUD or however you like to call it on the topic than > I'm not sure if *devs* are actually working on that. I believe there's Perhaps not official Gentoo devs, but users taking development initiative to solve a problem in userland. I'm not an official Gentoo dev, either, but I think it'd be a very bad idea to discourage or ridicule such initiative. Someone putting in that much effort in light of all the information already available isn't something that should be taken lightly! > >> Now I understand why some devs are working hard to make Mdev working >> with OpenRC. > > different, you could as well disable USE=udev and use regular udev. > equivalent to KDE/GNOME/whatever without anything? And if it's no > But you are aware that KDE/GNOME/whatever+mdev would be practically (My reason for replying...looks like a few chunks of text got lost here.) [snip] -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:33:59 -0400 Sylvain Alain wrote: > The KDE team seems to work on that too : > http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134052539215508&w=2 it's actually worth it. more user-spread FUD or however you like to call it on the topic than I'm not sure if *devs* are actually working on that. I believe there's > Now I understand why some devs are working hard to make Mdev working > with OpenRC. different, you could as well disable USE=udev and use regular udev. equivalent to KDE/GNOME/whatever without anything? And if it's no But you are aware that KDE/GNOME/whatever+mdev would be practically > They want to replace Udev/SystemD with Mdev/OpenRC and solve this > situation. > > Sylvain aka d2_racing > > 2012/8/7 Rich Freeman > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > > Yes, but if the upstream that is Gnome decides to start depending > > > on systemd features then that's their decision, and the place to > > > discuss if it's good or bad (more important, the place to change > > > it!) would be within the Gnome project. > > > > More or less, but again my goal was not to start another discussion > > - just to inform. Anybody inclined to comment on whether this is > > good or bad should go look at the list archives and see if any of > > the 400 messages in the last month already covered their points. > > > > > > > > I guess Gentoo will always continue to offer the best of upstream. > > > > I don't think Gentoo has to limit itself to what upstream supports > > (I don't think anybody would look at Prefix and say that this was > > what any upstream had in mind). However, the bottom line is that > > to do something exotic takes effort, so nothing will happen unless > > somebody makes it happen. > > > > > > > > OTOH, if upstream goes and make some change that means a > > > regression for Gentoo users, then they deserve bug report floods > > > from their users! > > :) > > > > Perhaps, but don't count on it going anywhere. With Gnome 3 they > > must already have pretty thick skin. I suspect upstream would say > > that if you want a smooth desktop experience you shouldn't be > > running Gentoo. To some degree they probably even have a valid > > point. Gentoo is about more than a just-works desktop so I think > > the best we'll be able to offer is a "reasonable" experience. If > > things get really integrated you might see some Sabayon-like forks > > favoring particular DEs/etc, and as long as those forks contribute > > to our main tree I think that is good for all of us. > > > > Rich > > > > > > -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
The KDE team seems to work on that too : http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=134052539215508&w=2 Now I understand why some devs are working hard to make Mdev working with OpenRC. They want to replace Udev/SystemD with Mdev/OpenRC and solve this situation. Sylvain aka d2_racing 2012/8/7 Rich Freeman > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > Yes, but if the upstream that is Gnome decides to start depending on > > systemd features then that's their decision, and the place to discuss > > if it's good or bad (more important, the place to change it!) would > > be within the Gnome project. > > More or less, but again my goal was not to start another discussion - > just to inform. Anybody inclined to comment on whether this is good > or bad should go look at the list archives and see if any of the 400 > messages in the last month already covered their points. > > > > > I guess Gentoo will always continue to offer the best of upstream. > > I don't think Gentoo has to limit itself to what upstream supports (I > don't think anybody would look at Prefix and say that this was what > any upstream had in mind). However, the bottom line is that to do > something exotic takes effort, so nothing will happen unless somebody > makes it happen. > > > > > OTOH, if upstream goes and make some change that means a regression > > for Gentoo users, then they deserve bug report floods from their users! > :) > > Perhaps, but don't count on it going anywhere. With Gnome 3 they must > already have pretty thick skin. I suspect upstream would say that if > you want a smooth desktop experience you shouldn't be running Gentoo. > To some degree they probably even have a valid point. Gentoo is about > more than a just-works desktop so I think the best we'll be able to > offer is a "reasonable" experience. If things get really integrated > you might see some Sabayon-like forks favoring particular DEs/etc, and > as long as those forks contribute to our main tree I think that is > good for all of us. > > Rich > > -- Salut alp Sylvain
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Yes, but if the upstream that is Gnome decides to start depending on > systemd features then that's their decision, and the place to discuss > if it's good or bad (more important, the place to change it!) would > be within the Gnome project. More or less, but again my goal was not to start another discussion - just to inform. Anybody inclined to comment on whether this is good or bad should go look at the list archives and see if any of the 400 messages in the last month already covered their points. > > I guess Gentoo will always continue to offer the best of upstream. I don't think Gentoo has to limit itself to what upstream supports (I don't think anybody would look at Prefix and say that this was what any upstream had in mind). However, the bottom line is that to do something exotic takes effort, so nothing will happen unless somebody makes it happen. > > OTOH, if upstream goes and make some change that means a regression > for Gentoo users, then they deserve bug report floods from their users! :) Perhaps, but don't count on it going anywhere. With Gnome 3 they must already have pretty thick skin. I suspect upstream would say that if you want a smooth desktop experience you shouldn't be running Gentoo. To some degree they probably even have a valid point. Gentoo is about more than a just-works desktop so I think the best we'll be able to offer is a "reasonable" experience. If things get really integrated you might see some Sabayon-like forks favoring particular DEs/etc, and as long as those forks contribute to our main tree I think that is good for all of us. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
Rich Freeman wrote: > In the future it might be much harder to run Gnome on Gentoo on an OSX > kernel, etc. Yes, but if the upstream that is Gnome decides to start depending on systemd features then that's their decision, and the place to discuss if it's good or bad (more important, the place to change it!) would be within the Gnome project. I guess Gentoo will always continue to offer the best of upstream. OTOH, if upstream goes and make some change that means a regression for Gentoo users, then they deserve bug report floods from their users! :) //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Sylvain Alain wrote: > Hi everyone, for a couple of months now, I see on the list some of > activities about OpenRC been ported to FreeBSD or OpenRC to Debian and other > stuff related to SystemD. > You and half the world. Most of the issues you raise are much bigger than Gentoo and are taking the whole linux world by storm. > I have some basic questions about all that : > > 1. The SystemD and Udev projetcs are merged now, so what is the impact on > the Gentoo on a short term period ? In the short term nothing, although systemd has half-decent support now, the default remains openrc and there are no plans to change that. > > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some SystemD API, > so does it means that we will need to install SystemD aside of OpenRC ? > Now, no. In the future - nobody really knows for sure, but it seems likely that at least in some cases not only will you need to install it, but you'll need to run it also. I'd heard only Gnome was moving in this direction, but perhaps other projects are as well. I'd be surprised if Xfce moves in this direction - they've always been about being minimal. > 3. In a long term vision, can OpenRC still exist on a Gentoo box(OpenRC > might be able to boot the box then give the control to SystemD/Udev for the > rest of the boot process) or we will need to migrate to SystemD to be able > to use Gnome/Kde or Xfce ? > If you do need systemd for gnome/etc then most likely you'll just want to use it across the board. Trying to run some kind of a hybrid seems like the worst of both worlds. > 4. Finally, is there any reason why Gnome/Kde/Xfce wants to add deps related > to SystemD ? I don't understand why these desktops want to depend on a > specific Sysint You'd have to talk to them, but I believe their goal is to go for more of a vertically-integrated experience (which fits more with Gnome or KDE than Xfce, but again the last I'd heard only Gnome was going in this direction so far). Ubuntu is doing similar things with Unity/Upstart. I don't know everything that the integration will support, but I can imagine they're interested in things like better WiFi and network roaming support (re-set your network, re-configure your firewall settings, update the UI, etc), better behavior during suspend/resume/etc, handling of things like bluetooth, and so on. I don't run linux on a laptop unless you count my Chromebook so I can't really vouch for what the current experience is like or what needs improvement. I've tried to stick to the facts here, at least as far as I'm aware of them. I don't think we need another 50-post thread on The Unix Way(TM) and whether it is a good or bad thing. These developments are going to be a challenge for distros like Gentoo or Debian that aim to be general/meta distributions. It used to be that you could swap out major components and all the APIs/interfaces still worked. In the future it might be much harder to run Gnome on Gentoo on an OSX kernel, etc. However, all of this is a bit speculative and it is hard to say how things will actually turn out. Rich
