Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-15 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 00:00 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Hello. > > Theodore Ts'o - 14.07.19, 22:07: > > So requiring support of non-systemd ecosystems is in general, going to > > require extra testing. In the case of cron/systemd.timers, this > > means testing and/or careful code

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-15 Thread Russ Allbery
Peter Pentchev writes: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 12:30:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> There seems to be a clear infrastructure gap for the non-systemd world >> here that's crying out for some inetd-style program that implements the >> equivalent of systemd socket activation and socket

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-15 Thread Simon Richter
Hi, On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:49:04PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > In the same way, we could implement "service monitoring" in sysvinit by > > adding an "inittab.d" directory, but I'm fairly sure that I'm not the first > > person who had this idea in the last thirty years, so there is

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-15 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 6:48 PM Simon Richter wrote: > The main limitation seems to be that it's not permitted to modify > inetd.conf from maintainer scripts. We could probably "fix" this by adding > an "inetd.conf.d" mechanism. There is update-inetd, but it doesn't support xinetd and doesn't

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-15 Thread Guillem Jover
On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 12:30:09 +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 07:23:31PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > Some systemd system services are meant to start on-demand via socket > > events (systemd.socket(5)), and can work via inetd on non-systemd-booted > > systems.

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-15 Thread Peter Pentchev
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 12:30:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Vincent Bernat writes: > > > inetd uses stdin/stdout to communicate with the daemon and have to > > launch one instance for each client connecting. systemd.socket pass a > > regular listening socket on first connection to the daemon

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-15 Thread Simon Richter
Hi, On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 07:23:31PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > Some systemd system services are meant to start on-demand via socket > events (systemd.socket(5)), and can work via inetd on non-systemd-booted > systems. micro-httpd appears to be an example of this - I'm a bit surprised >

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-14 Thread Russ Allbery
Vincent Bernat writes: > ❦ 14 juillet 2019 12:30 -07, Russ Allbery : >> There seems to be a clear infrastructure gap for the non-systemd world >> here that's crying out for some inetd-style program that implements the >> equivalent of systemd socket activation and socket passing using the >>

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-14 Thread Martin Steigerwald
Hello. Theodore Ts'o - 14.07.19, 22:07: > So requiring support of non-systemd ecosystems is in general, going to > require extra testing. In the case of cron/systemd.timers, this > means testing and/or careful code inspection to make sure the > following cases work: > > * systemd &&

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-14 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 14 juillet 2019 12:30 -07, Russ Allbery : > There seems to be a clear infrastructure gap for the non-systemd world > here that's crying out for some inetd-style program that implements the > equivalent of systemd socket activation and socket passing using the same > protocol, so that upstreams

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-14 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 07:23:31PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > micro-httpd appears to be an example of this - I'm a bit surprised > there aren't more. Perhaps this indicates limitations in the infrastructure > around inetd services making it hard to implement "use systemd.socket(5) > under

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-14 Thread Russ Allbery
Vincent Bernat writes: > inetd uses stdin/stdout to communicate with the daemon and have to > launch one instance for each client connecting. systemd.socket pass a > regular listening socket on first connection to the daemon and the > daemon can then serve multiple clients. I believe the wait

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-14 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 14 juillet 2019 19:23 +01, Simon McVittie : > Some systemd system services are meant to start on-demand via socket > events (systemd.socket(5)), and can work via inetd on non-systemd-booted > systems. micro-httpd appears to be an example of this - I'm a bit surprised > there aren't more.

Re: systemd services that are not equivalent to LSB init scripts

2019-07-14 Thread Simon McVittie
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 09:21:37 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > P.S. I'm going to be adding an override in e2fsprogs for > package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script because it > has false positive, regardless of its claim: > > N:Severity: important, Certainty: certain > > It most