On Mon, 22.09.14 10:16, Dale R. Worley (wor...@alum.mit.edu) wrote: > 1. Systemd has some very large binaries, each of which implements many > aspects of the system. Conversely, the typical Un*x approach is to > separate functions into many executablels, many of which are scripts. > The latter approach makes customization easier, especially for > sysadmins who aren't deeply familiar with the system.
We split up things into 80+ binaries. > 2. Systemd includes a tremendous number of features and behaviors, but > a lot of them aren't documented very well. That's not so unusual in > Un*x, but if you're introducing something new, nobody has any prior > knowledge of it, and the lack of documentation becomes visible. Please let us know where documentation is missing. I know a couple of areas where documentation is lacking (such as the too muc hof the C APIs we expose currently), but at least the user-facing stuff should be pretty comprehesively documented. If you are missing docs for something I'd be quite interested to know for which parts so that we can actually fix it. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
