init diversity in Debian

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!

init diversity in Debian

Postby golinux » 2019-09-19 17:49

May the FORK be with you!
User avatar
golinux
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: 2010-12-09 00:56
Location: not a 'buntard!

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby Head_on_a_Stick » 2019-09-20 16:52

Sounds like our beloved Leader is keen for that not to happen:
Sam Hartman wrote:I'm concerned that removing Elogind commits us to Systemd-based solutions with a very high cost to try new things or change direction. For me that's a step we should be very careful before taking.

And he proposes a GR vote to formally decide on support for elogind.

The bit that caught my eye was this:
Sam Hartman wrote:There are 1033 non-overridden instances of lintian detecting a service unit without an init.d script [7].

Does Devuan supply the missing init scripts for all of those packages?
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: /dev/chair

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby golinux » 2019-09-20 18:08

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:Sounds like our beloved Leader is keen for that not to happen:
Sam Hartman wrote:I'm concerned that removing Elogind commits us to Systemd-based solutions with a very high cost to try new things or change direction. For me that's a step we should be very careful before taking.
And he proposes a GR vote to formally decide on support for elogind.
Like that worked so well last time. Well, it did for ass-covering and non-action. :lol: For those who are unaware of how the last GR went down, I present dasein's drill-down analysis:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=120652
Head_on_a_Stick wrote:The bit that caught my eye was this:
Sam Hartman wrote:There are 1033 non-overridden instances of lintian detecting a service unit without an init.d script [7].
Does Devuan supply the missing init scripts for all of those packages?
No we don't. And I can't remember any discussion about a problem from the lack thereof. Either those packages aren't being used or those using them know how to create the missing bit. Here are the packages that we touch . . . a little less than 200:
https://git.devuan.org/devuan-packages?page=1
May the FORK be with you!
User avatar
golinux
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: 2010-12-09 00:56
Location: not a 'buntard!

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby Head_on_a_Stick » 2019-09-20 18:38

golinux wrote:
Head_on_a_Stick wrote:Does Devuan supply the missing init scripts for all of those packages?
No we don't.

Might be worth considering then, quite a few important services are on the list.
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: /dev/chair

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby golinux » 2019-09-20 18:55

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
golinux wrote:
Head_on_a_Stick wrote:Does Devuan supply the missing init scripts for all of those packages?
No we don't.

Might be worth considering then, quite a few important services are on the list.
If someone squawks, we'll have a look. We really don't need to do extra work if no one is experiencing an issue. Unless, you are offering to take on that project. And btw, if the GR decision been other than ass-covering, that issue wouldn't exist.
May the FORK be with you!
User avatar
golinux
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: 2010-12-09 00:56
Location: not a 'buntard!

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby sjukfan » 2019-09-20 22:24

Someone¹ should make a systemd unit file runtime, so sysV, openRC, and all those, could run unit files. Is the systemd unit file the best of them? Probably not, but there would be a whole lot less work everyone. (Except that someone ^^)

¹ With more programming experience than I.
Bullseye amd64, Core 2 Quad Q9550
Buster amd64, Intel Xeon E3-1240 v3
Sid ppc, PowerPC 7447a
Sid ppc64, PowerPC 970FX
User avatar
sjukfan
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 2010-03-01 19:39

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby Head_on_a_Stick » 2019-09-21 09:16

sjukfan wrote:Is the systemd unit file the best of them?

The unit files are declarative in nature (inspired by INI files) so they just list configuration options and leave the heavy lifting to the (C-based) backend. For the alternative init systems shell scripts are used instead and these require more skill to create than a unit file and are consequently more likely to be buggy. So yes, systemd unit files are the best. IMO.
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: /dev/chair

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby vmclark » 2019-09-21 15:00

Sometimes its hard to separate wheat from chaff. The articles are endless regarding systemd and mostly SysV. It appears they just want to go backwards without regard to current modern systems. Elogind is something I haven't heard of until now. The voices are loud regarding the init systems, but this read from Gentoo-Elogind explains some facts I wasn't aware of:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Elogind
vmclark
 
Posts: 167
Joined: 2008-07-30 15:16

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby edbarx » 2019-11-28 13:17

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:For the alternative init systems shell scripts are used instead and these require more skill to create than a unit file and are consequently more likely to be buggy.

Shell scripts can still be replaced, provided a script or executable does their job. When I was still coding for Devuan, I made this suggestion, but it was thrown out of the window.

Any init that uses shell scripts to run daemons can be modified to run them using an alternative configuration format like unit files. The counter argumentation against my proposal, and here, I am being very polite, was the exaggeration that this would require a mammoth task.

Shell scripts can be kept where they exist, and unit files can be used simultaneously, if an init provides a way to do so. This can be easily done by a single shell script which runs a daemon, which in turn, handles unit files and shell scripts.

So, this would be like this:
Code: Select all
sysvinit/antique init => shell scipt => daemon initialisation process (starts 1 & 2)
1) sysvinit shell scripts
2) unit file execution


Essentially, Devuan's criticism was my suggestions are too generic. Like a group of primary school pupils they asked for hands-on experience, before looking at things from an abstract point for view.


So yes, systemd unit files are the best. IMO.

Unit files can be integrated into antique inits as shown above.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
User avatar
edbarx
 
Posts: 5399
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby Head_on_a_Stick » 2019-11-28 17:06

edbarx wrote:Unit files can be integrated into antique inits

Only if stripped of the extra features offered by systemd. And anyway why would you want to start units with bash rather than C? Seems like a peculiar choice to me.
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: /dev/chair

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby golinux » 2019-11-28 17:31

This from Jessie Smith the maintainer of sysvinit. Perhaps co-existence is possible:

===========================================

https://www.patreon.com/posts/31633933

Nov 17 at 10:29am
Converting systemd units to init style shell scripts

In the past I have hinted at the idea of including a tool (or tools) which would help packagers and developers convert systemd unit files into SysV init style shell scripts with LSB headers. While I was working on a C library for this, another developer (who goes by the name Trek) beat me to it.

Trek sent over a Bash shell script which accepts a systemd unit file as its sole parameter. It then digests the unit file and prints out an equivalent shell script and some debugging information. The shell script is called sysd2v.sh and is now included in the SysV init source code, under the "contrib" directory.

Now converting a unit file into a complete shell script is as easy as running a command like "sysd2v.sh /lib/systemd/system/ssh.service" to translate the OpenSSH service into a shell script.

While the conversion script is now part of the SysV init source archive, Trek has kindly made sysd2v.sh available as a stand-alone script on his website: http://www.trek.eu.org/devel/sysd2v/

Thank you, Trek. The new conversion script will be in the next stable release of SysV init, which will carry the version number 2.97.

===========================================
May the FORK be with you!
User avatar
golinux
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: 2010-12-09 00:56
Location: not a 'buntard!

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby Head_on_a_Stick » 2019-12-08 09:32

So the voting options are in: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-a ... 00002.html

My vote would be
Code: Select all
[   ] Choice 1: F: Focus on systemd
[   ] Choice 2: B: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
[   ] Choice 3: A: Support for multiple init systems is Important
[ 1 ] Choice 4: D: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
[   ] Choice 5: H: Support portability, without blocking progress
[   ] Choice 6: E: Support for multiple init systems is Required
[   ] Choice 7: G: Support portability and multiple implementations
[   ] Choice 8: Further Discussion

Ian Jackson ftw! :)

Anybody else want to play?
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
 
Posts: 11204
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: /dev/chair

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby Danielsan » 2019-12-10 17:41

From my ignorance I see these discrepancies:

All the systemd alternatives, older and newer, are basically simple programs where services are managed by scripts, and the complexity are left to the scripts. And that makes a lot sense for me, I mean I think it should be easier maintain a script rather than a complex software.

Systemd is the opposite paradigm, is a complicated and monolithic programs with an easy way to manage services. It is easy to manage for anyone even without a proper background but it needs a dedicated team to work and to maintain it. And to lead the future development you will need a person that really know well how it works, I don't think that is really strategic when you have to depend by someone else.

What we would need is a compromise, compatible with systemd unit, but desktop oriented; server stuff can continues to be handled by systemd and the majority is happy with it!
User avatar
Danielsan
 
Posts: 559
Joined: 2010-10-10 22:36

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby pcalvert » 2019-12-11 02:02

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:The bit that caught my eye was this:
Sam Hartman wrote:There are 1033 non-overridden instances of lintian detecting a service unit without an init.d script [7].


Here's a thought that just came to mind: Did any of those packages exist in Debian Wheezy and, if they did, did they come with an init.d script? If so, perhaps those init.d scripts could be used as is, or with some modifications.

Phil
“Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good
in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become
rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.”
— Abraham Lincoln
pcalvert
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: 2006-04-21 11:19
Location: Sol Sector

Re: init diversity in Debian

Postby golinux » 2019-12-11 03:22

pcalvert wrote:Here's a thought that just came to mind: Did any of those packages exist in Debian Wheezy and, if they did, did they come with an init.d script? If so, perhaps those init.d scripts could be used as is, or with some modifications.

Phil
Looks like there may be a workaround from Jessie Smith:
Nov 17 at 10:29am
Converting systemd units to init style shell scripts
May the FORK be with you!
User avatar
golinux
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: 2010-12-09 00:56
Location: not a 'buntard!

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

fashionable